Search This Blog

Sunday, June 01, 2025

Examination of Allegations Regarding Military Support to the Arakan Army and US Involvement in Myanmar Affairs

Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive analysis of recent allegations concerning military support from Bangladesh and the United States to the Arakan Army (AA) in Myanmar, alongside an assessment of broader US government and intelligence involvement in the region. The findings address the core components of the inquiry, drawing on available research to delineate facts from unsubstantiated claims.
Regarding alleged Bangladesh military support for the Arakan Army (AA), the evidence indicates no direct military backing. Bangladesh's engagement with both the Myanmar junta and the AA is primarily diplomatic and humanitarian, driven by the pressing need to manage the Rohingya crisis and ensure border stability. This engagement, while sometimes unofficial with the AA due to their de facto control over significant portions of Rakhine State, is rooted in pragmatic necessity rather than military alignment.
Concerning alleged US military support for the Arakan Army (AA), there is no credible evidence of direct military aid. US policy towards Myanmar focuses on imposing sanctions against the military junta, providing authorized non-lethal assistance to broader resistance groups (though implementation has faced delays), and promoting democracy and human rights. Claims of a US "proxy war" in Myanmar, including direct military support to the AA, are widely dismissed by expert observers as lacking verifiable evidence.
As for current US government or Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) involvement in Myanmar affairs, beyond overt diplomatic engagement, sanctions, and humanitarian aid, there are no current indications of direct, overt CIA operational involvement or military support for specific resistance groups, including the AA, post-2021 coup. While historical CIA activities in Myanmar are documented, these do not suggest a current direct operational role in the ongoing conflict. US intelligence maintains an interest in the region, particularly concerning regional stability and countering Chinese influence, but without evidence of direct military intervention or covert action in support of the AA.
The broader geopolitical context reveals Myanmar's conflict, especially in Rakhine State, as a complex arena where regional powers like China and India actively pursue their strategic interests. This often involves dual-track diplomacy or engagement with various actors, including the AA, which complicates prospects for a stable resolution and contributes to a conflict-fueled shadow economy.
Introduction: The Evolving Conflict in Myanmar and Rakhine State
Myanmar has been engulfed in a profound "polycrisis" since the military coup in February 2021, leading to widespread conflict and significant instability across the nation. The military junta, officially known as the State Administration Council (SAC), has seen its territorial control severely diminish, reportedly holding only about 21% of Myanmar's landmass. In contrast, various resistance groups now control 42%, with the remaining territory heavily contested. This dramatic shift in control underscores the profound weakening of the central military authority and the fragmentation of governance across the country.
Within this tumultuous environment, the Arakan Army (AA), the armed wing of the United League of Arakan (ULA), has emerged as a dominant non-state actor in Rakhine State. The AA has strategically capitalized on the instability, asserting de facto control over approximately 80% of the region that shares a border with Bangladesh. Since launching a significant offensive in November 2023, the AA has achieved substantial territorial gains, capturing strategic towns and key positions along the Bangladesh-Myanmar frontier. The stated objective of the AA is to achieve greater autonomy for the Rakhine people, a goal they have pursued through sustained military campaigns against the junta.
The ongoing conflict in Rakhine has severely exacerbated an already dire humanitarian crisis, leading to massive internal displacement and a continuous flow of refugees into neighboring countries. Bangladesh, in particular, bears a heavy burden, hosting over 1.3 million Rohingya refugees, with an additional 113,000 having fled into its territory since November 2023 alone. This influx places immense pressure on Bangladesh's already strained resources and social cohesion, creating a complex humanitarian and security dilemma for Dhaka.
Adding to the crisis, the Myanmar junta has been accused of systematically denying life-saving humanitarian aid to affected civilians, including both Rohingya and ethnic Rakhine communities. This deliberate obstruction extends to blocking trade routes and refusing travel authorizations for humanitarian workers and essential medicine shipments. Such actions are not merely consequences of the conflict but appear to be a calculated strategy by the junta to exert control over populations and weaken support for resistance groups, potentially amounting to war crimes. This transforms humanitarian assistance from a neutral act of relief into a contested element of warfare, creating profound ethical dilemmas for aid organizations and international actors.
Efforts towards Rohingya repatriation, a long-standing international objective, are severely complicated by the persistent conflict and the AA's extensive control over Rakhine. Despite Myanmar's announcement of verifying 180,000 Rohingya as "eligible" for repatriation, widespread skepticism persists due to the unstable conditions and the AA's dominant presence in the proposed return areas. Any sustainable resolution for the Rohingya crisis will increasingly depend on direct and effective engagement with the AA, given their consolidation of power. This shift towards de facto governance by the AA fundamentally alters the regional diplomatic and humanitarian landscape. It compels neighboring states like Bangladesh and international organizations, such as the United Nations, to engage with the AA as a necessary interlocutor for humanitarian aid delivery, border management, and any future repatriation efforts. This pragmatic engagement, even if unofficial, inadvertently confers a degree of legitimacy upon the AA's authority, challenging traditional state-centric approaches to international relations and complicating the junta's claims of sovereignty over Rakhine.
Assessment of Alleged Bangladesh Military Support for the Arakan Army
Bangladesh's approach to the escalating conflict in Myanmar's Rakhine State is characterized by a complex balancing act, prioritizing border stability, humanitarian concerns, and the eventual repatriation of Rohingya refugees. Official statements and diplomatic engagements reveal a nuanced strategy rather than direct military support for any armed group.
Bangladesh maintains active diplomatic contact with both the Myanmar junta in Naypyidaw and the Arakan Army in Rakhine State. This dual engagement reflects Bangladesh's precarious position as a direct neighbor grappling with the severe spillover effects of Myanmar's internal conflict. The primary stated objectives of these engagements are explicitly focused on "stability, humanitarian aid, and Rohingya repatriation". Bangladesh's National Security Adviser, Khalilur Rahman, affirmed direct engagement with Naypyidaw and engagement with the Arakan Army "via the UN," indicating a preference for internationally mediated channels when dealing with non-state actors like the AA.
Bangladesh has, in principle, agreed to a United Nations proposal for a humanitarian passage into Rakhine State, to be supervised by the UN, but with "certain conditions" attached. This cautious acceptance underscores Bangladesh's desire to facilitate aid while mitigating potential risks to its national security and sovereignty. A UN spokesperson further clarified that any cross-border humanitarian support from Bangladesh to Myanmar would require agreement between the two governments, as the UN is legally obligated to obtain permission from concerned governments for such assistance. This highlights the formal diplomatic hurdles involved, even for humanitarian initiatives, and the necessity of state-level consent.
The concept of a "humanitarian corridor" has generated significant domestic political debate and concern within Bangladesh. Political parties, such as the BNP, have voiced strong reservations regarding its "potential implications for national security and sovereignty". BNP Standing Committee member Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury publicly questioned the interim government's "unclear" stance and perceived secrecy surrounding the humanitarian aid passage, noting initial denials followed by active discussions, including talks in Qatar. He specifically raised concerns about the idea of repatriating Rohingya "through the corridor through the Arakan Army," emphasizing the Rohingya's right to dignified return without conditions imposed by an armed group. This debate reveals how humanitarian efforts in complex conflict zones can become politicized and serve as a proxy for broader geopolitical maneuvering. For Bangladesh, this means navigating a delicate balance where fulfilling its humanitarian obligations risks drawing it deeper into Myanmar's internal power struggles and the strategic competition between global powers. The domestic political backlash underscores the sensitivity of such engagements and the need for extreme caution to avoid unintended consequences that could compromise national interests or stability.
Concerns were also articulated regarding the Arakan Army's alleged support from a "group of Chinese" and who would guarantee any agreement made with the AA, stressing that Bangladesh's stability "cannot be exposed to a power struggle". This reveals a deep-seated apprehension about being drawn into Myanmar's internal conflicts and regional geopolitical rivalries. Bangladesh faces a delicate "balancing act," striving to uphold its humanitarian obligations while simultaneously safeguarding its national security interests.
While there is no evidence of direct military support, Bangladesh has engaged in "unofficial contacts with the Arakan Army". These informal exchanges are described as being "pursued more out of necessity than choice" , reflecting the pragmatic reality of the AA's extensive territorial control. The Myanmar military's retreat has left Bangladesh without a "formal state counterpart" in Rakhine for coordinating critical issues like security, displacement, and border governance. This vacuum compels Bangladesh to interact with the AA, despite its non-state status. The necessity of engaging with the AA, a non-state armed group, due to the Myanmar military's retreat and the AA's consolidation of power, inadvertently confers a degree of legitimacy upon the AA as a de facto governing entity. This normalization of engagement with non-state actors sets a precedent for regional diplomacy in areas where central government authority has eroded. It highlights the profound destabilizing impact of the Myanmar conflict, forcing neighboring countries to adopt unconventional foreign policy approaches that carry inherent risks of entanglement but are deemed essential for managing immediate humanitarian and security challenges. However, these unofficial contacts, while necessary for practical purposes, "still risk drawing Bangladesh into Myanmar's internal conflict". This highlights the inherent dangers and sensitivities of engaging with non-state armed groups that are actively involved in a civil war. Bangladesh's strategic position requires it to balance its relationships with major powers like China and the US, while prioritizing the welfare and security of its own population most affected by the crisis.
The following table summarizes Bangladesh's engagements with key actors in Myanmar regarding Rakhine State:
Table 1: Bangladesh's Engagements with Myanmar Actors on Rakhine State (Official vs. Unofficial)
| Actor Engaged With | Nature of Engagement | Purpose/Focus | Conditions/Caveats | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Myanmar Junta (Naypyidaw) | Direct Diplomatic Contact | Stability, Humanitarian Aid, Rohingya Repatriation | Formal agreement required for UN cross-border aid  |  |
| Arakan Army (AA) | UN-mediated Contact, Unofficial Contacts | Stability, Humanitarian Aid, Rohingya Repatriation | Via UN for formal engagement; "more out of necessity than choice" for unofficial due to de facto control  |  |
Assessment of Alleged US Military Support for the Arakan Army
US policy towards Myanmar since the February 2021 military coup has been characterized by a cautious and reactive stance, which some analyses describe as "ineffectual" in achieving its stated goals. The overarching strategic goal of the United States is to "restore Burma's path to inclusive democracy," a condition deemed essential for the country's long-term stability and the advancement of broader US interests in the Indo-Pacific region.
In response to the coup and the junta's ongoing human rights abuses, the US has implemented a robust sanctions regime. These sanctions specifically target the Myanmar military regime, its senior officials, military-linked companies, and key state-owned enterprises, including the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE). More recent sanctions have also focused on entities facilitating cyber scams, underscoring a strategic focus on disrupting the junta's revenue streams. Furthermore, the US suspended all trade engagement with Burma under the 2013 Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), effective immediately, until a democratically elected government is restored. The US Department of State continues to maintain a "Level 4: Do Not Travel" advisory for Burma, citing armed conflict, civil unrest, and the significant risk of wrongful detentions, among other dangers for travelers.
The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA 2023), which incorporates a modified version of the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act (BURMA Act), authorizes the provision of "non-lethal assistance" for resistance groups in Myanmar. The scope of this authorized non-lethal aid is broad, potentially encompassing items such as radios for command and control, ruggedized laptops, GPS systems, satellite phones, body armor, civilian drones and spare parts, and early warning systems against military air strikes. It also covers technical assistance and capacity building for local administrative units and improved coordination among various resistance entities.
Despite this legislative authorization, the implementation of the BURMA Act has been described as "slow-going". The Biden administration has generally "refrained from direct mention of relations with the EAOs and PDFs, choosing to focus more on its engagement with the NUG" (National Unity Government) , and has "largely avoided following through on Congressional mandates". This slow pace has reportedly led to "widespread disappointment in Myanmar" regarding a perceived lack of US support. Furthermore, previous aid cuts, notably by the Trump administration, have severely impacted broader humanitarian efforts, including life-saving assistance for refugees and conflict-affected populations in Myanmar and Bangladesh. The US's risk-averse approach, while intended to prevent direct entanglement or escalation with China, has inadvertently created a strategic vacuum that Beijing is actively filling. China's "dual-track diplomacy" , engaging with both the junta and ethnic armed groups, allows it to maintain significant leverage and protect its economic interests regardless of the conflict's outcome. This suggests that the US's current strategy may be counterproductive to its stated long-term goals of promoting democracy and counterbalancing Chinese influence, as it cedes the role of primary external power broker to China, potentially prolonging the conflict and making a democratic transition more difficult.
Reports, primarily circulating in South Asia, have alleged that the United States and its allies are preparing to launch a "proxy war" in Myanmar. These claims ostensibly aim to destroy the Tatmadaw (Myanmar's armed forces) and deny China access to the Indian Ocean. These narratives include highly specific allegations, such as US officials reportedly traveling to Bangladesh to plan operations with the Bangladeshi government, the establishment of a "massive supply dump" in Bangladesh to support military operations by insurgent groups including the Arakan Army and Chin National Front, and claims that at least three divisions of the Bangladesh Army were preparing to provide logistics and tactical support to anti-junta forces. Further allegations include US assistance in building a "massive facility" near Cox's Bazar for launching Turkish drones against the Tatmadaw, consideration of a "Bosnia-type no-fly zone" over Rakhine with a US aircraft carrier in the Bay of Bengal, and reports of US naval vessels conducting "coast-kissing operations" to secretly supply arms and ammunition to Myanmar's opposition. Mentions of "Western intelligence agencies fuelling an armed rebellion" and "thousands" of British and American mercenaries secretly entering Myanmar to train ethnic insurgents have also surfaced.
However, these claims are categorically dismissed by observers for several critical reasons. Fundamentally, none of the claims are supported by concrete evidence or direct confirmation from key actors. From an objective standpoint, these stories are considered to "simply defy belief" and are "nothing short of incredible". The likelihood of any Western country engaging in direct military intervention or a proxy war in Myanmar is deemed "vanishingly small," as no strategic imperative would outweigh the significant military and political risks involved. While foreign countries and international organizations provide humanitarian assistance, they are unlikely to provide "lethal" aid, and any such clandestine attempts would likely be quickly exposed. Any mercenaries operating in Myanmar are almost certainly acting on their own initiative, not as agents of a foreign power, and their impact has been minimal. The prevalence of such elaborate, yet unsubstantiated, "proxy war" narratives indicates a sophisticated and active information warfare landscape surrounding the Myanmar conflict. This suggests deliberate efforts by certain actors, potentially the junta or other geopolitical rivals, to spread disinformation, aiming to discredit US intentions, sow distrust among resistance groups, or influence regional perceptions. This environment of pervasive disinformation complicates the ability of international actors to formulate and implement effective policies, as it necessitates constant efforts to counter false narratives and can erode public and political will for genuine engagement, even for humanitarian purposes. Myanmar has a known "reputation for attracting bizarre claims of shadowy deals and secret operations" due to a lack of verifiable information, which creates a fertile ground for misinformation and disinformation.
The following table outlines the US non-lethal aid provisions and their implementation challenges:
Table 2: US Non-Lethal Aid Provisions and Implementation Challenges
| Authorized Non-Lethal Aid Types (Examples) | Authorized Recipient Groups | Implementation Status | Key Challenges/Limitations | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radios for command/control, rugged laptops, GPS, satellite phones, body armor, civilian drones/parts, early warning systems, technical assistance, capacity building | Resistance groups, Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs), People's Defense Forces (PDFs), pro-democracy movement organizations | Slow-going; administration has largely avoided full implementation | Funding issues (authorization vs. appropriation), impact of previous aid cuts, perceived lack of support, risk aversion |  |
Current US Government and CIA Involvement in Myanmar Affairs
The core strategic objective of the United States in Myanmar is to facilitate the "restoration of Burma's path to inclusive democracy," a goal considered vital for the country's long-term stability and the advancement of broader US interests in the Indo-Pacific region. The US pursues this objective through "positive engagement with the people of Burma" , emphasizing "soft power" initiatives such as educational opportunities for Myanmar youth. The aim is to cultivate future policymakers who can support democratic transitions within their country.
Diplomatically, the US actively encourages efforts by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to pressure the junta to de-escalate violence and engage in dialogue with opposition actors. A significant strategic consideration for the US is to "counterbalance China's expanding footprint in Southeast Asia". However, a less proactive US approach has been observed to have "encouraged greater Chinese involvement in Myanmar, not less". The US has formally determined that members of Burma's military have committed genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya, underscoring the human rights dimension of its policy.
CIA activities in Myanmar (historically Burma) have a long and documented history, dating back to World War II with Office of Strategic Services (OSS) operations against the Japanese occupation and continuing through the Cold War. During the Cold War, US intelligence was concerned about communist influence and engaged in operations such as supporting Chinese nationalist general Li Mi's forces in northern Myanmar. Declassified documents reveal the CIA's historical mandate for "covert operations" including "assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberations". Myanmar has historically been a significant target of foreign intelligence interest, leading to pervasive surveillance of foreigners by Myanmar's counterintelligence agencies due to suspicions of external interference and clandestine support for opposition elements. This historical precedent of US covert operations in Myanmar significantly complicates current US diplomatic efforts and its stated policy of promoting democracy and human rights. Past actions, even if decades old, lend a veneer of plausibility to contemporary unverified claims, making it challenging for the US to credibly deny involvement. This "shadow of the past" can undermine trust, feed into anti-Western narratives, and create obstacles for legitimate humanitarian and development initiatives, as US intentions are often viewed through a lens of historical suspicion and perceived hidden agendas.
More recently, reports from 2010 and 2011, based on leaked documents, indicate the presence of an electronic surveillance facility at the US Embassy in Yangon, jointly operated by the CIA and NSA (Special Collection Service). Additionally, leaked diplomatic cables from 2011 suggested US funding for civil society groups in Myanmar that played a role in the suspension of the controversial Chinese Myitsone Dam project.
Based on the provided research, there is no direct evidence of current, overt CIA operational involvement or direct military support to specific resistance groups, including the Arakan Army, in Myanmar post-2021 coup. A historical document from 1962 explicitly states that "The Central Intelligence Agency is not engaged in operational activities either in Burma or in Thailand which encourage or support Shan insurgency in any way". While dated, this reflects an official stance on direct operational support to insurgencies. Claims of "Western intelligence agencies fuelling an armed rebellion" are mentioned in the context of the dismissed "proxy war" allegations and are not substantiated by hard evidence. Current US policy, as articulated, emphasizes "non-lethal assistance" and "soft power" engagement , rather than direct military intervention or covert operational support to armed groups. The vigilance of Myanmar's counterintelligence efforts against foreign intelligence activities  suggests that any significant direct operational involvement would be high-risk and difficult to conceal. The US's reluctance to engage more proactively or directly in Myanmar's internal conflict, while aiming to prevent escalation or a proxy war with China, has inadvertently created a strategic vacuum that Beijing is effectively filling. China's pragmatic and multi-faceted engagement allows it to maintain significant leverage over all major actors, securing its economic and strategic interests regardless of the conflict's outcome. This suggests that the US's current strategy, by prioritizing risk avoidance, may be inadvertently undermining its own long-term goals of promoting democracy and counterbalancing Chinese influence, allowing China to solidify its position as the dominant external power broker in a strategically vital region.
The following table summarizes the various modalities of US engagement in Myanmar:
Table 3: US Engagement Modalities in Myanmar (Diplomatic, Sanctions, Aid, Intelligence)
| Modality of Engagement | Specific Actions/Tools/Programs | Primary Goals/Purpose | Current Status/Challenges | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diplomatic Engagement | Encouraging ASEAN efforts, promoting democracy, suspending trade (TIFA) | Restore democracy, human rights, counter Chinese influence | Cautious, reactive, ineffectual, historical legacy of suspicion |  |
| Sanctions | Imposing sanctions on junta/military-linked entities (MOGE, cyber scam facilitators) | Disrupt junta's finances, promote accountability | Ongoing, but impact on junta's overall control debated |  |
| Humanitarian/Development Aid | Providing humanitarian aid, educational opportunities (USAID, scholarships) | Alleviate suffering, cultivate future democratic leaders | Aid cuts, slow implementation of authorized programs |  |
| Non-Lethal Assistance (BURMA Act) | Authorizing non-lethal aid (radios, drones, body armor, etc.) | Support resistance groups, strengthen federalism | Slow implementation, funding issues, perceived lack of support |  |
| Intelligence Activities | Historical covert operations, current surveillance facilities, funding civil society groups (historical) | Intelligence gathering, influence events, counter communist influence (historical) | Historical legacy of suspicion, no current direct operational support to AA evident |  |
Geopolitical Implications and Regional Dynamics
Rakhine State has emerged as a critical "focal point of geopolitical contention," attracting the strategic interests of China, the United States, and India. Both China and India are actively vying for influence in this strategically significant region. This intense strategic competition risks transforming Rakhine State into a proxy arena, where the local conflict is exacerbated and prolonged by external powers pursuing their own economic and security agendas. While this external interest might offer some tactical advantages or resources to local actors like the AA, it fundamentally complicates efforts to achieve a genuine, lasting peace and a sustainable solution for the Rohingya. The explicit prioritization of geopolitical and economic goals by major powers over the humanitarian crisis means that the suffering of the local population remains a secondary concern, potentially perpetuating cycles of violence, displacement, and instability for the foreseeable future.
China's Interests: China's involvement in Rakhine is deeply intertwined with its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC). Key investments include the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone and a gas pipeline linking Rakhine to China's Yunnan province, which are vital for securing uninterrupted access to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the Strait of Malacca. China employs a "dual-track diplomacy," officially supporting the junta while simultaneously providing aid and arms to various Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) like the AA and the United Wa State Army (UWSA). This strategy allows Beijing to maintain leverage over multiple factions and protect its economic and security interests regardless of the shifting power dynamics. Notably, Chinese private security groups are reportedly assisting the junta with drone attacks against the AA near Kyaukphyu , illustrating the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of China's engagement, where it prioritizes its investments over consistent support for any single faction.
India's Interests: India views Rakhine as a crucial strategic gateway for its "Act East Policy," which aims to enhance connectivity with Southeast Asia and counterbalance China's growing influence in the region. The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project, designed to connect India's landlocked northeastern states to the Bay of Bengal, is a cornerstone of this policy. India is also concerned about the potential for insurgent groups in Myanmar to forge ties with separatist movements in its own northeastern states, exacerbating its internal security challenges. In response to the evolving situation, India has reportedly begun "engaging more directly with the Arakan Army" as part of its broader strategy to counter Chinese influence in Myanmar.
The protracted conflict in Myanmar has significantly destabilized the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, leading to frequent cross-border violence, including gunfire and mortar shelling spilling into Bangladeshi territory, resulting in civilian casualties. Myanmar's internal unrest generates broader "security concerns for bordering nations, threatening regional peace and stability". The collapse of effective governance within Myanmar has created a permissive environment for the proliferation of transnational criminal networks. Human trafficking, cyber scams, and the illicit drug trade are surging, with these criminal activities increasingly spilling over into neighboring countries. Alarmingly, some of these criminal networks, often backed by Chinese organized crime groups, are reported to be funding both the junta and various resistance forces, further complicating the conflict dynamics. The Myanmar conflict is no longer solely driven by political or ethnic grievances; it is increasingly sustained and complicated by a burgeoning illicit economy. This criminal financing creates a perverse incentive for both the military junta and certain resistance groups to prolong the conflict, as it provides a lucrative and self-sustaining revenue stream that bypasses traditional international sanctions or aid channels. This development poses a significant and evolving regional security threat, as the spillover of these criminal activities impacts neighboring countries, potentially drawing them into illicit networks and undermining their own rule of law and stability. It also makes achieving a lasting peace more challenging, as economic interests become deeply entrenched in the conflict's continuation. Regional stakeholders are increasingly recognizing the urgent need for coordinated international responses, emphasizing diplomatic solutions and collaborative efforts, potentially under the auspices of ASEAN or the United Nations, to address the humanitarian crisis and mitigate regional risks.
Conclusion and Outlook
The examination of allegations regarding military support to the Arakan Army and US involvement in Myanmar affairs reveals a complex geopolitical landscape characterized by humanitarian imperatives, strategic competition, and the enduring challenges of state fragility.
Regarding Bangladesh and the AA, the analysis finds no credible evidence of direct military support from Bangladesh to the Arakan Army. Bangladesh's engagement is primarily diplomatic and humanitarian, conducted through official channels with the Myanmar junta and via the UN with the AA. This engagement is driven by the pragmatic necessity of managing the Rohingya refugee crisis and ensuring border stability in the face of the AA's de facto control over Rakhine State. Unofficial contacts with the AA are a reflection of this operational reality, born out of the absence of a formal state counterpart in the region.
Concerning the US and the AA, reports of direct US military support to the Arakan Army are unsubstantiated. US policy towards Myanmar centers on imposing sanctions against the military junta, authorizing non-lethal assistance to broader resistance groups (though implementation has been slow and faced challenges), and promoting democracy and human rights. Widespread claims of a US "proxy war" in Myanmar, including direct military aid to the AA, are dismissed by expert observers as lacking verifiable evidence and defying logical credibility, often stemming from a history of disinformation in the region.
As for US Government and CIA Involvement, beyond established diplomatic engagement, sanctions, and humanitarian assistance, there are no current indications of direct, overt CIA operational involvement or military support for specific resistance groups, including the AA, post-2021 coup. While historical CIA activities in Myanmar are documented and US intelligence maintains an interest in the region, particularly concerning Chinese influence, this does not translate into direct military intervention or covert action in support of the AA in the current conflict. The enduring legacy of historical covert operations, however, continues to shape perceptions and contributes to the plausibility of unsubstantiated claims, complicating current US diplomatic efforts.
The implications for regional stability and international policy are profound. The ongoing civil war in Myanmar, particularly the escalating conflict in Rakhine State and the rise of the Arakan Army as a dominant non-state actor, continues to profoundly destabilize the border regions, posing significant humanitarian and security challenges for neighboring Bangladesh. The increasing autonomy and military strength of the Arakan Army necessitate pragmatic engagement from regional actors and international bodies, even in the absence of a recognized state counterpart, highlighting a fundamental shift in regional power dynamics.
The complex geopolitical competition between China and India in Rakhine adds multiple layers of complexity to the conflict. Both powers are actively pursuing their strategic economic and security interests, often through dual-track diplomacy that engages with various factions. This external involvement can inadvertently prolong the conflict and sometimes prioritizes geopolitical gains over humanitarian concerns, leaving the plight of the local population as a secondary consideration. Furthermore, the alarming emergence of a conflict-fueled shadow economy, driven by transnational criminal networks that reportedly fund both the junta and some resistance forces, creates a perverse incentive for continued conflict and poses a significant, evolving regional security threat that complicates international efforts for peace.
Moving forward, international policy must transcend overly cautious approaches and consider more effective, coordinated, and multi-faceted strategies. These strategies must simultaneously address the dire humanitarian crisis, navigate the complex web of external influences and disinformation, and foster conditions conducive to a sustainable and inclusive peace in Myanmar, recognizing the evolving roles of both state and non-state actors.

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

It's American's Economic are Driving by Capitalism?

Several years after living in America, I reflect on my youth in Burma, where I learned socialist ideals, Socialists are criticizing capitalism’s selfishness. In Myanmar, we valued social equity and collective support, but I found socialism’s vision often failed in practice. Surprisingly, I discovered that many of these ideals thrive in the U.S. Here’s what I’ve learned:
The United States has never been purely capitalist or "laissez-faire." From its founding, the U.S. Constitution enabled a mixed economy by empowering the government to regulate commerce, issue currency, and promote general welfare. Over time, especially during the Progressive Era and the New Deal post-Great Depression, government involvement grew through:
  • Regulation: Breaking monopolies, protecting workers, consumers, and the environment.
  • Social Safety Nets: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits.
  • Public Goods: Education, infrastructure, defense, and postal services.
  • Economic Management: Fiscal and monetary policies to stabilize the economy.
The U.S. blends private enterprise with government oversight and social programs, evolving continuously as a mixed economy, not a recent shift.

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Home Isn’t Just a Roof—It’s a Right


"Home isn't just a roof. It's where hearts feel warm."

– Agga 


When I first heard these words, they struck me as more than poetic. They felt like a quiet truth many of us carry but rarely say out loud


" အိမ်"ဆိုတဲ့ သီချင်းလေးကို သွားသတိရတယ်။ ကဗျာလေးလားတောင်ထင်ရတယ် သီးချင်းရဲ့ အစက "

ကမ္ဘာမြေမှာ ခိုလှုံရာခေါ်ဆိုခဲ့ အိမ်...

ရံရွေလယ်ထည်ဝါစွာ ဆင်စွယ်နန်း အိမ်...

ကျူထရံတွေကာရံကာ ဓနိမိုးအိမ်...

နှလုံးသားတွေ နွေးထွေးရင် ဒါဟာလည်း အိမ်...".


For millions, the concept of “home” remains elusive—especially in urban environments where housing has become a luxury instead of a basic need. Rent prices continue to climb. Salaries often stagnate. And owning a home? That’s beginning to feel like a fading dream for many in my generation.


But this doesn’t have to be the story.


In my search for models that offer hope, I came across the Housing Development Board (HDB) in Singapore. This publicly driven housing initiative has become a global example of how thoughtful policy can reshape not only city landscapes, but human lives.


Here’s how it works:


Citizens can jointly apply for a long-term, 25-year home loan.


The government sells homes at cost—no speculative profits.


Homes must be held for at least five years to prevent flipping or price manipulation.


What’s remarkable isn’t just the affordability—it’s the dignity. Couples are empowered to build futures together. Families find stability. Communities grow stronger.


Now contrast that with countries where rent eats away at nearly half of monthly income. Where housing insecurity is a cycle that keeps people moving but never settling. In these places, home becomes something you chase, not something you build.


This isn't just a personal concern—it’s a policy issue. And the good news? There are solutions. They just require the political will to act, and a shared belief that everyone deserves more than shelter. Everyone deserves warmth. Safety. Belonging.


So I ask:


What if we stopped treating housing as a market commodity—and started treating it as a human right?


The answer could redefine how we live, how we love, and how we build futures. Let’s take that seriously.


– Agga


What if home wasn’t just a place, but a feeling?


A steady heartbeat.

A quiet comfort.

A shared dream.

That's the home I dream of, yet feel I don't deserve. How would it even feel?


In the end, I realize I need to accept reality, but I won't stop dreaming – not for all my brothers and sisters, and for our citizens.


#HomeWithin #FindingHome #AggaReflections #CozySoul #EmotionalSpaces




Today

the dearest friends are thinking...
Oh, Agga, the one who always shared joyful stories with us, a friend like no other.
The comrades are now starting to think of something for their partner.
My son, your tears soften my heart… Don't cry.
The elder sisters are amazed… saying you’re just like your uncle.
Brothers & Sister's feel sad… saying someone who brings sorrow has gone.
As for the parents, they seem unable to even begin thinking about it.
The shadow from the street feels happy… saying this guy has reached his goal.
In the year 2011."

ဒီနေ့

ဒီနေ့
အခင်ဆုံး သူငယ်ချင်းတွေက တွေး
တယ်... အော် အဂ္ဂ ပျော်စရာတွေ ပြောပြီး နေတဲ့ မိတ်ဆွေတစ်ဦး
ရဲဘော်တွေက တော့ သူတို့ လက်တွဲဖေါ်အတွက် တစ်ခုခု စဉ်စားနေလေတော့
ငါ့သား မျက်ရေတွေကို နှမြောတယ် .. မင်းမျက်ရည်မကျနဲ့

အဒေါ်တွေကတော့ အံသြော နိုင်တယ်.. မင်းက ဦးလေးနဲ့ တူတယ်တဲ့
အမတွေကတော့ စိတ်မကောင်းဘူး.. ဒုက္ခပေးမဲ့သူ တစ်ဦးတော့ သွားပြီ
မိဘတွေကတော့ ဘားမှ ကို တွေးနိုင်ပုံ မပေါ်ဘူး

လမ်းထဲက အရှုးကတော့ ဝမ်းသာတယ်... ဒီကောင် ပန်းတိုင် ရောက်ပြီတဲ့..
2011 ခုနှစ်

ဆုတောင်း

ယုံကြည့်မှု့၊ ခံယူချက်၊ အယူအစ တွေ မတူညီပင်မဲ့ ဘုံအကြိုးစီးပွားကို ရှေ့ရှု့သူတွေဖြစ်ပါစေ။ ကမ္ဘာကြီးမှာ တရားမျှတမှု့ရှိတဲ့ ငြိမ်းချမ်းရေးတွေ ဖြစ်ပေါ်လာပါစေ။ကြီးနိုင် ငယ်ညှင်း စိတ်ဓါတ်တွေ ပျောက်ဆုံးပါစေ၊ လူငယ်တွေ ပညာတက်တွေ ဖြစ်ပါစေ၊ ဆယ်တန်းကို မခိုးချဘဲအောင်ပါစေ၊ သားလေး ဘဝကို တန်ဖိုးရှိအောင် အသုံးချနိုင်ပါစေ၊ သမီးလေ ကိုယ့်ကိုကိုယ် တန်ဖိုးထားနိုင်ပါစေ၊ သဘာ၀ ပတ်ဝန်းကျင်ထိန်းသိမ်း ဘို့ နိုင်ငံခေါင်းဆောင်များ ညီမျှတဲ့ အပေးအယူတွေ နဲ့ ပေးဆပ် ထိန်းသိမ်းနိုင်ပါစေ၊ ဘာသာရေးသမားများ၊ နိုင်ငံရေးသမားများ လုပ်စားမှု့ ကင်းပါစေ.. လက်နှက်ကိုင် နိုင်ငံရေးသမားတွေ ပပျောက်ပါစေ။ မီးမှန်မှန်လာပါစေ၊ ချစ်သူတွေ စစ်မှန်တဲ့ မေတ္တာ တွေနဲ့ ချစ်နိုင်ကြပါစေ၊ အူးဝဲလို့ မွေးလိုက်တဲ့ ကလေးလေးမှာ မိစုံဖစုံ ရှိပါစေ၊ လင်ကောင်မပေါ်ဘဲ မွေးတဲ့ ကလေး ပပြောက်ပါစေ။ အပြီးတိုင် ခွဲခွာတော့မည့် လင်မယာ ကောင်းကွပ်လေးများ နဲ့ ပြန်ပေါင်းထုပ်နိုင်ပါစေ။ ကျန်းမာရေး ကို အလေးပြု အသိ ဝင်နိုင်ပါစေ။ ကမ္ဘာပေါ်မှာ မရှိတော့တဲ့ ချစ်သူတွေကို သတိရနိုင်ပါစေ
19 Jun 2010 ရေးသည်

Crazy

Mother, your son has gone mad.
Is the environment full of thieves?
Are friends murderers?
Mother, your son can't think anymore.
Is money god?
Are possessions saints?
Mother, your son doesn't know anymore.
Is sin for those who know nothing?
Are merit and goodness for the dead?
Mother, your son doesn't understand anymore.
Is the bar for good people?
Are temples for bad people?
Mother, your son has gone mad.
Do dogs eat rice and people eat feces?
Are zoos for putting people in?
Mother, tell your son,
Did you give birth to me to die?
Did you give birth to people to make them cry?
Mother, please look at your son,
Please come and stay by my side.
Or else, please pray for me to die.
Mother...
Your son is scared... I don't want to stay in the dark...

အရူး

အမေ အမေ့သားရှုးနေပြီ
ပတ်ဝန်ကျင်ဆိုတာ သူခိုးတွေလား
မိတ်ဆွေဆိုတာ လူသက်သမားတွေလား

အမေ အမေ့သား မတွေးတက်တော့ဘူး
ငွေဆိုတာက ဘုရားသခင်လာ
ပိုင်ဆိုင်မှု တွေက သူတော်စဉ်တွေလား

အမေ အမေ့သား မသိတော့ဘူး
အကုသိုလ် ဆိုတာက ဘာမှ မသိသူတွေ အတွက်လား
ကုသိုလ် နဲ့ ကောင်ခြင်းတွေက သေနာကောင်တွေ အတွက်လား

အမေ အမေ့သား သဘောမပေါက်တော့ဘူး
လူကောင်းတွေ အတွက် က အရက်ဆိုင်လား
လူရုပ်မာတွေ အတွက် က ဘုရာကျောင်းတွေလား

အမေ အမေ့သားရှုးနေပြီ
ခွေးတွေက ထမင်းစားပြီး လူတွေချီးစားနေပြီလား
တိရိဆန်ရုံ ဆိုတာ လူတွေ ထည့်ထားဘို့လား

အမေ အမေ့သားကို ပြောပါ
ကျွန်တော့် ကို မွေးလိုက်တာ သေဘို့လား
လူတွေ ငိုရအောင် မွေးလိုက်တာလား

အမေ အမေ့သားကို ကြည့်ပါအုံး
သားအနားမှာ လာနေပေးပါလား
ဒါမှ မဟုတ် ကျွန်တော် သေအောင်ဆုတောင်း ပေးပါလား

အမေ..
သားကြောက်တယ်... အမှာင်ထဲမှာ မနေချင်ဘူး.......

Union Day ( Myanmar )

A friend once said that today is a day when ethnic minorities were deceived... Over 62 years have passed since Myanmar gained independence, but how has it truly benefited the ethnic people? Who even respects the agreements made at the Panglong Conference? Did they ever have the right to determine their own destiny as promised in that treaty?

Ethnic minorities should have the right to officially open schools and teach their own literature and languages... Their cultures should be protected and freely upheld under constitutional law... For these things, I pray.

When the socialists brought their ideology to Myanmar, they silently shifted from international socialism to national socialism... And if you look closely, that’s just the Nazi model.

The Nazi Party was national socialism. Myanmar’s socialists confiscated the assets of the wealthy and redistributed them to the poor, claiming fairness. But what happened? The rich became poor, and the poor remained poor. A rickshaw driver became a judge. A lazy, jobless man became the welfare minister. So, did the people really get the education, healthcare, and social security that the socialists promised? I don’t know... But in the capitalist countries they criticized, these things exist today—thriving. Do they lack jobs? No, there’s support. No money? Welfare covers it.

So, we must boldly examine whether the systems we’ve lived under have succeeded or failed. If they’re wrong, we must turn sharply in a new direction. I bring this up now because it’s relevant—it connects directly to Union Day.

Because of these socialists, ethnic groups endlessly lost their rightful entitlements. Now, perhaps realizing this, their rights are slowly being restored... I don’t know, but it makes you think.



Tuesday, May 06, 2025

GES Business idea by Agga

Global Executive The document outlines the business plans for the Global Executive Society (GES) and Acceleration Partners.

Global Executive Society (GES) aims to be a premier global network for executives and professionals, offering exclusive benefits through tourism, business networking, and lifestyle privileges. Key services include an Executive Membership Card with financial services, affiliate marketing, and AI-powered CRM. GES plans to establish a network initially in Southeast Asia and China, then expand globally, targeting high-net-worth individuals, executives, and frequent travelers. Financial objectives include profitability within two years and steady membership growth.

Acceleration Partners is a global leader in partnership marketing, specializing in affiliate, influencer, and performance partnerships. They offer services like designing and managing affiliate programs, transforming influencer collaborations into revenue channels, and assisting brands in building partnership programs. They emphasize transparency, long-term relationships, and a performance-based approach. They help businesses expand market reach, provide performance-driven marketing solutions, and offer customized program development.
Global Executive Society (GES) Business Plan




Vision:
To become the premier global network connecting executives and profess
ionals, offering exclusive benefits, convenience, and value through tourism
, business networking, and lifestyle privileges.
Mission Statement: To provide exclusive, high-value partnership-based solutions, enhancing global mobility, convenience, and business connectivity for executives and business professionals.
Core Services:
Executive Membership Card: Integrates financial services (like a Visa Debit Card), discounts on travel, hospitality, and exclusive airport lounge access.
Affiliate & Partnership Marketing: Leverage strategic alliances to expand brand reach and offer comprehensive value-added services to members.
AI-powered CRM Solutions: Streamlined appointment scheduling, automated communications, personalized marketing outreach.
Strategic Objectives:
Establish and grow an influential executive network starting in Southeast Asia and China, then expanding globally.
Develop robust partnerships through affiliate marketing and strategic collaborations to enhance value and convenience for members.
Partnership & Affiliate Marketing Opportunities (Acceleration Partners):
Explore strategic partnership opportunities to extend market reach, optimize marketing outcomes, and generate additional revenue streams.
Implement scalable affiliate and influencer marketing programs to attract high-quality members and partners.
Competitive Advantages:
Integration of financial services with executive perks and zero transaction fees.
Strong existing network and extensive business experience in Southeast Asia and China.
AI-driven CRM for member engagement, personalization, and customer satisfaction enhancement.
Target Market:
High-net-worth individuals, corporate executives, frequent business travelers, and entrepreneurs, initially targeting Southeast Asia, China, and gradually expanding globally.
Financial Objectives:
Achieve profitability within the first two years post-launch.
Steady membership growth at a minimum rate of 25% per year.

Acceleration Partners Business Summary
Overview: Acceleration Partners is a global leader in partnership marketing, specializing in helping brands build and manage strategic partnership programs. Their approach focuses on driving measurable outcomes for businesses through affiliate marketing, influencer marketing, and performance partnerships.
Core Services:
Affiliate Marketing – They design and manage affiliate programs, leveraging a vast network of partners to enhance brand reach and increase conversions.
Influencer Marketing – They transform influencer collaborations into direct revenue channels by implementing scalable, performance-based strategies.
Partnership Program Design – They assist brands in building, refining, or expanding their partnership marketing programs with customized strategies tailored to business goals.
Business Ethics and Values:
Transparency – They believe in open, honest, and data-driven strategies.
Long-Term Relationships – They focus on building sustainable partnerships that provide ongoing value.
Performance-Based Approach – Their strategies are rooted in measurable success, ensuring a strong return on investment.

How They Benefit Businesses:
Help businesses expand market reach through strategic partnerships.
Provide performance-driven marketing solutions that deliver measurable results.
Offer customized program development based on specific brand needs.
Acceleration Partners emphasizes a people-first approach, working closely with clients and partners to ensure long-term success. Their methodology combines innovation, relationship-building, and data-driven decision-making to create sustainable growth for brands worldwide.







Society (GES) နှင့် Acceleration Partners များအတွက် လုပ်ငန်းအစီအမံများကို အလေးပေးဖော်ပြထားသည်။

Global Executive Society (GES) သည် ခရီးသွားလုပ်ငန်း၊ စီးပွားရေးကွန်ရက်နှင့် လူနေမှုပုံစံဆိုင်ရာ အထူးအခွင့်အရေးများမှတစ်ဆင့် သီးသန့်အကျိုးခံစားခွင့်များကို ပေးဆောင်သည့် အမှုဆောင်များနှင့် ကျွမ်းကျင်ပညာရှင်များအတွက် ထိပ်တန်းကမ္ဘာလုံးဆိုင်ရာကွန်ရက်တစ်ခု ဖြစ်လာစေရန် ရည်ရွယ်ပါသည်။ အဓိကဝန်ဆောင်မှုများတွင် ဘဏ္ဍာရေးဝန်ဆောင်မှုများ၊ တွဲဖက်စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးနှင့် AI-powered CRM တို့ပါရှိသော အမှုဆောင်အဖွဲ့ဝင်ကတ်တစ်ခု ပါဝင်သည်။ GES သည် ကနဦးတွင် အရှေ့တောင်အာရှနှင့် တရုတ်နိုင်ငံတို့တွင် ကွန်ရက်တစ်ခု တည်ထောင်ရန် စီစဉ်နေပြီး၊ ထို့နောက်တွင် ကမ္ဘာအနှံ့ တိုးချဲ့ကာ အသားတင်တန်ဖိုးကြီးသော ပုဂ္ဂိုလ်များ၊ အမှုဆောင်များနှင့် မကြာခဏ ခရီးသွားသူများကို ပစ်မှတ်ထားရန် စီစဉ်ထားသည်။ ငွေကြေးဆိုင်ရာ ရည်မှန်းချက်များတွင် နှစ်နှစ်အတွင်း အမြတ်အစွန်းရရှိမှုနှင့် တည်ငြိမ်သောအသင်းဝင်မှု တိုးတက်မှုတို့ ပါဝင်သည်။

Acceleration Partners သည် တွဲဖက်စျေးကွက်ချဲ့ထွင်ခြင်း၊ သြဇာလွှမ်းမိုးမှုရှိသူနှင့် စွမ်းဆောင်ရည်မိတ်ဖက်ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်မှုများတွင် အထူးပြုထားသော မိတ်ဖက်စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးတွင် ကမ္ဘာလုံးဆိုင်ရာခေါင်းဆောင်တစ်ဦးဖြစ်သည်။ ၎င်းတို့သည် တွဲဖက်ပရိုဂရမ်များကို ဒီဇိုင်းဆွဲခြင်းနှင့် စီမံခန့်ခွဲခြင်း၊ သြဇာလွှမ်းမိုးမှုရှိသော ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်မှုများကို ဝင်ငွေချန်နယ်များအဖြစ် ပြောင်းလဲခြင်းနှင့် မိတ်ဖက်ပရိုဂရမ်များတည်ဆောက်ရာတွင် အမှတ်တံဆိပ်များကို ကူညီပေးခြင်းတို့ကဲ့သို့သော ဝန်ဆောင်မှုများကို ပေးဆောင်ပါသည်။ ၎င်းတို့သည် ပွင့်လင်းမြင်သာမှု၊ ရေရှည်ဆက်ဆံရေးနှင့် စွမ်းဆောင်ရည်အခြေခံ ချဉ်းကပ်မှုကို အလေးပေးသည်။ ၎င်းတို့သည် စီးပွားရေးလုပ်ငန်းများကို ဈေးကွက်လက်လှမ်းမီမှုကို ချဲ့ထွင်ရန်၊ စွမ်းဆောင်ရည်မောင်းနှင်သော စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးဖြေရှင်းချက်များကို ပံ့ပိုးပေးကာ စိတ်ကြိုက်ပရိုဂရမ် ဖွံ့ဖြိုးတိုးတက်မှုကို ပံ့ပိုးပေးသည်။
Global Executive Society (GES) လုပ်ငန်းအစီအစဉ်




အမြင်-
အမှုဆောင်အရာရှိများနှင့် ချိတ်ဆက်ထားသော ကမ္ဘာ့ထိပ်တန်းကွန်ရက်ဖြစ်လာရန်
ခရီးသွားခြင်းဖြင့် သီးသန့်အကျိုးခံစားခွင့်များ၊ အဆင်ပြေမှုနှင့် တန်ဖိုးများကို ပေးဆောင်သည်။
စီးပွားရေးကွန်ရက်ချိတ်ဆက်ခြင်းနှင့် လူနေမှုပုံစံဆိုင်ရာ အခွင့်ထူးများ။
မစ်ရှင်ထုတ်ပြန်ချက်- အမှုဆောင်များနှင့် လုပ်ငန်းကျွမ်းကျင်ပညာရှင်များအတွက် ကမ္ဘာလုံးဆိုင်ရာ ရွေ့လျားသွားလာမှု၊ အဆင်ပြေမှုနှင့် စီးပွားရေးချိတ်ဆက်မှုကို တိုးမြှင့်ပေးရန်အတွက် သီးသန့်၊ တန်ဖိုးမြင့် မိတ်ဖက်အခြေပြု ဖြေရှင်းချက်များအား ပံ့ပိုးပေးရန်။
အဓိက ဝန်ဆောင်မှုများ-
အမှုဆောင်အဖွဲ့ဝင်ကတ်- ငွေရေးကြေးရေးဝန်ဆောင်မှုများ (Visa Debit Card ကဲ့သို့)၊ ခရီးသွားလာမှု၊ ဧည့်ဝတ်ပြုမှုနှင့် သီးသန့်လေဆိပ်သုံးခွင့်အတွက် လျှော့စျေးများ ပေါင်းစပ်ထားသည်။
Affiliate & Partnership Marketing- အမှတ်တံဆိပ်ရောက်ရှိမှုကို ချဲ့ထွင်ရန်နှင့် အဖွဲ့ဝင်များအတွက် ပြီးပြည့်စုံသော တန်ဖိုး-ထပ်လောင်းဝန်ဆောင်မှုများကို ပေးဆောင်ရန် မဟာဗျူဟာမြောက်မဟာမိတ်များကို အသုံးချပါ။
AI-powered CRM ဖြေရှင်းချက်များ- ချောမွေ့သော ရက်ချိန်းအချိန်ဇယားဆွဲခြင်း၊ အလိုအလျောက်ဆက်သွယ်မှုများ၊ ပုဂ္ဂိုလ်ရေးသီးသန့် စျေးကွက်ချဲ့ထွင်ခြင်း
မဟာဗျူဟာ ရည်မှန်းချက်များ-
အရှေ့တောင်အာရှနှင့် တရုတ်နိုင်ငံတို့တွင် စတင်၍ သြဇာကြီးမားသော အမှုဆောင်ကွန်ရက်ကို တည်ထောင်ပြီး ကမ္ဘာအနှံ့ ချဲ့ထွင်ပါ။
အဖွဲ့ဝင်များအတွက် တန်ဖိုးနှင့် အဆင်ပြေမှုတိုးမြှင့်ရန် တွဲဖက်စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးနှင့် ဗျူဟာမြောက် ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်မှုများမှတစ်ဆင့် ခိုင်မာသောမိတ်ဖက်များကို ဖော်ဆောင်ပါ။
ပါတနာနှင့် တွဲဖက်စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေး အခွင့်အလမ်းများ (အရှိန်မြှင့်လုပ်ဖော်ကိုင်ဖက်များ)-
စျေးကွက်လက်လှမ်းမီမှုကို တိုးချဲ့ရန်၊ စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးရလဒ်များကို ပိုမိုကောင်းမွန်အောင်ပြုလုပ်ရန်နှင့် အပိုဝင်ငွေလမ်းကြောင်းများဖန်တီးရန် မဟာဗျူဟာမြောက် မိတ်ဖက်အခွင့်အရေးများကို ရှာဖွေပါ။
အရည်အသွေးမြင့်အဖွဲ့ဝင်များနှင့် ပါတနာများကို ဆွဲဆောင်ရန် အရွယ်ရောက်နိုင်သော တွဲဖက်နှင့် သြဇာလွှမ်းမိုးမှုရှိသော စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးအစီအစဉ်များကို အကောင်အထည်ဖော်ပါ။
ယှဉ်ပြိုင်နိုင်သော အားသာချက်များ
အမှုဆောင်အကျိုးခံစားခွင့်များနှင့် ငွေပေးငွေယူအခကြေးငွေ လုံးဝမရှိသော ဘဏ္ဍာရေးဝန်ဆောင်မှုများကို ပေါင်းစပ်ခြင်း။
ခိုင်မာသော ရှိပြီးသားကွန်ရက်နှင့် အရှေ့တောင်အာရှနှင့် တရုတ်နိုင်ငံတို့တွင် ကျယ်ပြန့်သော လုပ်ငန်းအတွေ့အကြုံများ။
အဖွဲ့ဝင်ဆက်ဆံမှု၊ ပုဂ္ဂိုလ်ရေးဆန်မှု၊ နှင့် သုံးစွဲသူစိတ်ကျေနပ်မှုမြှင့်တင်မှုအတွက် AI-မောင်းနှင်သော CRM။
ပစ်မှတ်စျေးကွက်-
အသားတင်တန်ဘိုးကြီးသော ပုဂ္ဂိုလ်များ၊ ကော်ပိုရိတ်အမှုဆောင်များ၊ မကြာခဏ စီးပွါးရေးခရီးသွားများနှင့် စွန့်ဦးတီထွင်သူများ၊ အစပိုင်းတွင် အရှေ့တောင်အာရှ၊ တရုတ်တို့ကို ပစ်မှတ်ထားပြီး ကမ္ဘာအနှံ့ တဖြည်းဖြည်း ချဲ့ထွင်လာကြသည်။
ငွေကြေးဆိုင်ရာ ရည်ရွယ်ချက်များ-
စတင်ပြီးနောက် ပထမနှစ်နှစ်အတွင်း အမြတ်အစွန်းရရှိရန်။
တစ်နှစ်လျှင် အနည်းဆုံး 25% နှုန်းဖြင့် တည်ငြိမ်သော အသင်းဝင်တိုးတက်မှု။

Acceleration Partners လုပ်ငန်းအကျဉ်းချုပ်
ခြုံငုံသုံးသပ်ချက်- Acceleration Partners သည် အမှတ်တံဆိပ်များ တည်ဆောက်ပြီး မဟာဗျူဟာမြောက် မိတ်ဖက်ဆက်ဆံရေးပရိုဂရမ်များကို စီမံခန့်ခွဲရာတွင် ကူညီပေးသည့် မိတ်ဖက်စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးတွင် ကမ္ဘာလုံးဆိုင်ရာ ဦးဆောင်သူတစ်ဦးဖြစ်သည်။ ၎င်းတို့၏ချဉ်းကပ်မှုသည် လုပ်ငန်းခွဲစျေးကွက်ချဲ့ထွင်ခြင်း၊ သြဇာလွှမ်းမိုးမှုရှိသောစျေးကွက်ချဲ့ထွင်ခြင်းနှင့် စွမ်းဆောင်ရည်မိတ်ဖက်များမှတစ်ဆင့် စီးပွားရေးလုပ်ငန်းများအတွက် တိုင်းတာနိုင်သောရလဒ်များကို မောင်းနှင်ခြင်းအပေါ် အလေးပေးပါသည်။
အဓိက ဝန်ဆောင်မှုများ-
Affiliate စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေး - ၎င်းတို့သည် ပေါင်းစည်းထားသော ပရိုဂရမ်များကို ဒီဇိုင်းဆွဲကာ စီမံခန့်ခွဲကာ အမှတ်တံဆိပ်ရောက်ရှိမှုနှင့် စကားဝှက်များကို တိုးမြှင့်ရန်အတွက် မိတ်ဖက်များ၏ ကြီးမားသောကွန်ရက်ကို အသုံးချသည်။
Influencer စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေး - ၎င်းတို့သည် အတိုင်းအတာအထိ စွမ်းဆောင်ရည်အခြေခံသည့် ဗျူဟာများကို အကောင်အထည်ဖော်ခြင်းဖြင့် သြဇာလွှမ်းမိုးမှုရှိသော ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်မှုများကို တိုက်ရိုက်ဝင်ငွေလမ်းကြောင်းများအဖြစ် ပြောင်းလဲပေးပါသည်။
မိတ်ဖက်ပရိုဂရမ် ဒီဇိုင်း - ၎င်းတို့သည် လုပ်ငန်းရည်မှန်းချက်များနှင့် ကိုက်ညီသော စိတ်ကြိုက်ဗျူဟာများဖြင့် ၎င်းတို့၏ မိတ်ဖက်စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေးပရိုဂရမ်များကို တည်ဆောက်ခြင်း၊ သန့်စင်ခြင်း သို့မဟုတ် ချဲ့ထွင်ခြင်းများတွင် ကုန်အမှတ်တံဆိပ်များကို ကူညီပေးပါသည်။
လုပ်ငန်းကျင့်ဝတ်နှင့် တန်ဖိုးများ-
ပွင့်လင်းမြင်သာမှု – ၎င်းတို့သည် ပွင့်လင်းမြင်သာမှု၊ ရိုးသားမှုနှင့် ဒေတာမောင်းနှင်သည့် ဗျူဟာများကို ယုံကြည်ကြသည်။
ရေရှည်ဆက်ဆံရေး – ၎င်းတို့သည် စဉ်ဆက်မပြတ်တန်ဖိုးများပေးဆောင်သည့် ရေရှည်တည်တံ့သော မိတ်ဖက်ဆက်ဆံရေးများကို တည်ဆောက်ရန် အာရုံစိုက်ကြသည်။
Performance-Based Approach - ၎င်းတို့၏ မဟာဗျူဟာများသည် တိုင်းတာနိုင်သော အောင်မြင်မှုတွင် အမြစ်တွယ်နေပြီး ရင်းနှီးမြှုပ်နှံမှုအပေါ် ခိုင်မာသော ပြန်လာမှုကို သေချာစေသည်။

လုပ်ငန်းများကို မည်ကဲ့သို့ အကျိုးပြုသည်-
စီးပွားရေးလုပ်ငန်းများကို မဟာဗျူဟာမြောက် မိတ်ဖက်များမှတစ်ဆင့် စျေးကွက်ချဲ့ထွင်ရန် ကူညီပေးပါ။
တိုင်းတာနိုင်သော ရလဒ်များကို ထုတ်ပေးသည့် စွမ်းဆောင်ရည်ဖြင့် မောင်းနှင်သော စျေးကွက်ရှာဖွေရေး ဖြေရှင်းချက်များကို ပေးဆောင်ပါ။
သတ်မှတ်ထားသော အမှတ်တံဆိပ်လိုအပ်ချက်များအပေါ် အခြေခံ၍ စိတ်ကြိုက်ပရိုဂရမ် ဖွံ့ဖြိုးတိုးတက်မှုကို ကမ်းလှမ်းပါ။
Acceleration Partners သည် ရေရှည်အောင်မြင်မှုရရှိစေရန် ဖောက်သည်များနှင့် လုပ်ဖော်ကိုင်ဖက်များနှင့် နီးကပ်စွာလုပ်ဆောင်ပြီး လူများ-ပထမချဉ်းကပ်မှုကို အလေးပေးပါသည်။ ၎င်းတို့၏ နည်းစနစ်သည် ကမ္ဘာတစ်ဝှမ်းရှိ ကုန်အမှတ်တံဆိပ်များအတွက် ရေရှည်တည်တံ့သော တိုးတက်မှုကို ဖန်တီးရန်အတွက် ဆန်းသစ်တီထွင်မှု၊ ဆက်ဆံရေးတည်ဆောက်မှုနှင့် ဒေတာမောင်းနှင်သော ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်ချခြင်းတို့ကို ပေါင်းစပ်ထားသည်။








 

Monday, May 05, 2025

China's Growing Power and Involvement in Myanmar: A Threat to Regional Stability?

 Yangon, May 2025 — China's growing military might and international influence have been accompanied by increasingly assertive interventions in several regional hotspots. Previously confined to maritime disputes, its actions are now expanding into Myanmar, raising concerns about the potential impact on regional peace and the risk of uncontrolled military escalations.

China's Direct Pressure and Historical Expansionism China's illegal territorial claims in the South China Sea and its historical subjugation of Tibet and Mongolia serve as stark reminders of its expansionist tendencies in the region. Its escalating military threats towards Taiwan further exacerbate tensions. Now, analysts suggest that China's involvement in Myanmar, particularly through industrial collaborations, has reached a critical stage.

China's Activities in Myanmar Reports indicate that China is providing direct or indirect support to various entities in Myanmar, including illicit organizations, ethnic armed groups, and the People's Defense Force (PDF). This support is primarily concentrated in southern border regions and the Shan and Kachin highlands. For instance, certain projects in Rakhine State are alleged to have military applications, potentially securing China's supply routes.

China’s Economic Interests and Exploitation in Myanmar China continues to invest heavily in Myanmar to systematically exploit its natural resources, including oil, natural gas, iron, and timber. It has established numerous energy projects and pipelines in Shan, Kachin, and Rakhine states, often engaging in partnerships with entities that have military ties. This suggests that China may be leveraging instability in Myanmar to exert greater control over its economic interests.

Impact on Regional Peace Even without direct military engagement, the Chinese government's covert actions are heightening tensions in Myanmar. These actions could trigger a broader arms race among regional actors, further destabilizing the region. Moreover, ASEAN member states, constrained by their economic ties with China, appear to have limited capacity to effectively address human rights and justice concerns.

A Call for Vigilance Throughout its history, China has demonstrated a willingness to use its power to expand its territory. Its current involvement in Myanmar may be a continuation of this pattern. Therefore, close scrutiny of China's activities and concerted efforts to safeguard regional peace are crucial.

Sunday, May 04, 2025

Myanmar in Crisis: Geopolitical Saturation and the International Stalemate

Audio review

1. Executive Summary

Four years after the military coup of February 1, 2021, Myanmar remains mired in an intractable crisis characterized by escalating violence, a deepening humanitarian catastrophe compounded by natural disasters like the devastating March 2025 earthquake, and a complex geopolitical overlay involving the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and major global powers including China, Russia, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU). The conflict has evolved into a full-blown civil war, pitting the State Administration Council (SAC) junta against a diverse coalition of resistance forces, including the National Unity Government (NUG), People's Defense Forces (PDFs), and numerous Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs). Despite significant territorial gains by resistance forces, particularly in border regions, the junta retains control over core areas and continues its brutal repression, fueled by external support, primarily from Russia and, more pragmatically, China.

The international response has been fractured and largely ineffective. ASEAN, hampered by internal divisions and its foundational principles of non-interference and consensus, has seen its flagship Five-Point Consensus (5PC) fail to gain any meaningful traction, eroding the bloc's centrality and credibility. China pursues a pragmatic, dual-track approach, engaging both the junta and EAOs to protect its extensive economic interests (notably the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor - CMEC) and maintain border stability, occasionally intervening through mediation or pressure related to specific concerns like transnational crime. Russia stands as the junta's most steadfast military and diplomatic supporter, providing advanced weaponry, including critical air power, and shielding the regime from stronger international censure, particularly at the UN Security Council. The US and EU have aligned on condemning the coup and imposing multiple rounds of sanctions against the junta, its affiliates, and revenue streams, while providing substantial humanitarian aid and expressing support for democratic forces. However, the impact of these measures is constrained by the junta's resilience, the lack of universal enforcement, and recent uncertainties surrounding US aid commitments.

This complex interplay of internal conflict dynamics and competing external interests has led to a state of "saturation" – the crisis has overwhelmed existing diplomatic frameworks, resulting in a protracted stalemate. No single actor possesses the capacity or will to impose a resolution, and the fragmented international response lacks the necessary coherence and leverage to compel a change in the junta's behavior or decisively support a transition. The conflict continues to inflict immense suffering on the Myanmar people, fuels illicit economies, and poses growing risks to regional stability. Moving forward requires a significant recalibration of the international approach, shifting focus towards coordinated pressure on the junta, robust and principled humanitarian action bypassing regime obstruction, unified support for an inclusive political process involving all key stakeholders, and a commitment to accountability for atrocities committed.

2. Myanmar Post-Coup: Deepening Crisis and Stalemate

The February 1, 2021, military coup d'état, which overthrew the democratically elected government led by the National League for Democracy (NLD), plunged Myanmar into a profound and multifaceted crisis that has only deepened over the subsequent four years.1 The nation is now engulfed in a brutal civil war, marked by widespread violence, immense human suffering, economic collapse, and a complex geopolitical deadlock.

Domestic Situation Overview

Persistent Conflict: The defining characteristic of post-coup Myanmar is the relentless conflict between the military junta, known as the State Administration Council (SAC), and a diverse array of opposition forces. The SAC, led by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, has consistently resorted to extreme violence and repression to maintain its grip on power.2 This includes indiscriminate airstrikes targeting civilian populations and infrastructure, the razing of entire villages, extrajudicial killings, systematic torture, sexual and gender-based violence, and the arbitrary detention of thousands.2 The junta has repeatedly extended the state of emergency, citing instability it largely perpetuates.2 A particularly egregious tactic has been the enforcement of the 2010 conscription law since February 2024, forcing young men and women into military service, thereby fueling further fear, displacement, and resistance.10 Reports indicate the Myanmar Air Force has dramatically increased its bombing campaigns, dropping more bombs per capita than seen even in the conflict in Ukraine.16

Resistance Dynamics: In response to the coup and the junta's brutality, a powerful resistance movement emerged. This includes the National Unity Government (NUG), formed by ousted lawmakers and activists, which declared a "people's defensive war" in September 2021.4 Its armed wing, the People's Defense Forces (PDFs), comprises numerous local cells engaged in guerrilla warfare and attacks on junta targets across the country.5 Crucially, the post-coup conflict has drawn in many of Myanmar's long-established Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs).3 While some EAOs remain neutral or prioritize their own interests, several key groups, particularly in border regions (like the Karen, Kachin, Karenni, and Chin), have actively allied with or supported the NUG and PDFs.22 This has led to significant battlefield gains for the resistance, especially since late 2023. Operation 1027, launched by the Three Brotherhood Alliance (Arakan Army - AA, Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army - MNDAA, Ta'ang National Liberation Army - TNLA), resulted in the capture of vast swathes of territory in northern Shan State.3 Similar offensives have seen the junta lose control over most border areas in Kachin, Chin, Karen, and Rakhine states.1 Reports suggest the junta now only fully controls a fraction of the country's territory.32 However, the resistance faces challenges, including achieving unified command structures, overcoming historical mistrust between Bamar-dominated groups like the NUG and some EAOs, and securing adequate resources and weaponry.4

Humanitarian Catastrophe: The conflict has precipitated a humanitarian disaster of staggering proportions. By early 2025, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) since the coup had surged past 3.5 million 9, adding to those displaced before 2021. The total number of people requiring humanitarian assistance is estimated at nearly 20 million, over a third of the population.9 Food insecurity is rampant, affecting millions 21, and malnutrition rates, particularly among children, are rising.42 The healthcare system has collapsed in many areas, partly due to the junta's systematic attacks on health facilities and personnel.44 Access for humanitarian aid organizations is severely restricted by the junta, which weaponizes aid delivery, deliberately blocking assistance to opposition-held areas.2 The devastating 7.7 magnitude earthquake that struck central Myanmar on March 28, 2025, compounded this already dire situation, killing thousands, injuring thousands more, destroying infrastructure including hospitals, and displacing hundreds of thousands, further overwhelming response capacities.44

Economic Collapse: The political turmoil and conflict have shattered Myanmar's economy. The national currency, the Kyat, has plummeted in value, driving inflation and making essential goods scarce and unaffordable for many.2 Foreign investment has largely dried up, livelihoods have been destroyed, and the banking system faces severe strain.2

Analysis of "Saturation" and Stalemate

The term "saturation" aptly describes the current state of the Myanmar crisis within the international arena. It reflects a situation where the sheer complexity of the internal conflict, the multitude of domestic and international actors with divergent and often competing interests, and the manifest failure of existing diplomatic frameworks like ASEAN's 5PC have overwhelmed the capacity for effective resolution.1 This saturation has led to a protracted and dynamic stalemate.

The junta, despite significant territorial losses, plummeting troop morale, and internal pressures possibly including corruption scandals 3, has proven resilient. It maintains control over major population centers in the central lowlands 1 and continues to access crucial military and economic resources, significantly aided by external partners like Russia and China.1 This prevents a regime collapse. Simultaneously, the resistance forces, while demonstrating considerable capacity and achieving notable military successes, remain fragmented.4 Challenges persist in establishing a fully unified political and military command, securing sustainable funding and advanced weaponry, and projecting a cohesive alternative governance structure across the entire country.4

International actors, meanwhile, are unable or unwilling to decisively alter this balance. ASEAN is paralyzed by internal divisions and its institutional constraints.1 China and Russia prioritize their own strategic interests, which often align with preserving the junta or managing the conflict rather than resolving it.32 Western powers (US/EU) apply pressure through sanctions and support for democracy but lack the leverage or direct engagement needed for a breakthrough, and face challenges in coordinating their efforts effectively.24 The failure of the international community to compel junta compliance with even basic demands, such as unhindered humanitarian access or adherence to ceasefires (like those declared post-earthquake, which the junta reportedly violated 51), underscores this stalemate.1 The earthquake response itself, while prompting temporary ceasefires from some actors 3, ultimately highlighted the junta's obstructionism and the limitations of international influence.51

This deadlock is not static; frontlines shift, alliances evolve, and external interventions occur tactically (e.g., China's mediation 3). However, the fundamental dynamics preventing a resolution persist. The junta controls core areas and resists pressure 2; the resistance is fragmented despite its gains 4; international efforts lack unity and enforcement 1; and external support fuels the conflict without enabling a decisive outcome for any side.1

The consequence of this protracted stalemate is the deepening of the humanitarian crisis, the further erosion of Myanmar's economy, the entrenchment of illicit economies (including narcotics, human trafficking, and scam centers) that thrive in ungoverned spaces 2, and an increasing risk of regional destabilization through refugee flows and transnational crime.1 The path back towards inclusive democracy appears increasingly remote under these conditions.

3. ASEAN's Fractured Response: The Failure of the Five-Point Consensus

In the immediate aftermath of the 2021 coup, ASEAN positioned itself as the primary regional body to address the escalating crisis in Myanmar. Convening an emergency leaders' meeting in Jakarta in April 2021, attended by junta leader Min Aung Hlaing himself, the bloc formulated the Five-Point Consensus (5PC) as its roadmap towards a peaceful resolution.1 The 5PC called for: (1) an immediate cessation of violence; (2) constructive dialogue among all parties concerned; (3) appointment of a special envoy of the ASEAN Chair to facilitate mediation; (4) provision of humanitarian assistance through the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre); and (5) a visit by the special envoy and delegation to Myanmar to meet with all stakeholders.13

Implementation Failure

Despite its initial adoption, the 5PC has proven utterly ineffective over the past four years, failing to achieve any of its stated objectives.1 The SAC junta has demonstrated consistent bad faith and outright non-compliance. Violence, far from ceasing, has escalated dramatically, with the junta intensifying attacks on civilians and resistance groups.2 Constructive dialogue has been impossible, as the junta refuses to engage meaningfully with key opposition stakeholders, including the NUG and detained NLD leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi.2 Humanitarian assistance has been systematically obstructed, with the junta weaponizing aid and denying access to areas outside its control.2 ASEAN Special Envoys have faced significant hurdles, including being denied access to key figures necessary for fulfilling their mandate.26 Indeed, the junta effectively repudiated the consensus just days after agreeing to it, stating it would only consider ASEAN's "suggestions" once "stability" (on its terms) was restored.58 ASEAN itself has repeatedly acknowledged the "minimal progress" or "substantially inadequate progress" in the 5PC's implementation.14

ASEAN's Internal Divisions

The failure of the 5PC is inextricably linked to deep-seated divisions within ASEAN itself.1 Member states hold divergent views on how to approach the crisis, reflecting their own political systems, economic interests, and relationships with Myanmar and external powers. A bloc often described as more "activist" or principled, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines, has pushed for stronger condemnation of the junta, adherence to the 5PC as an ultimatum, and engagement with the NUG.14 Conversely, other members, including Thailand under its previous government, Cambodia, Laos, and sometimes Vietnam, have historically favored quieter diplomacy, engagement with the junta, or prioritized the principle of non-interference.22 This division was evident early on, for instance, in the split vote among ASEAN members on a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the coup in June 2021.72

These rifts manifest in debates over the 5PC itself. At the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat in Langkawi in January 2025, the Philippines reiterated the need for a new approach, while Vietnam suggested a comprehensive assessment to potentially include more stakeholders, even hinting at involving EAOs – a striking departure from typical ASEAN positions.1 However, no concrete alternatives were agreed upon, highlighting the policy paralysis.1 Furthermore, actions by individual member states, such as Thailand hosting informal meetings with the junta and like-minded neighbors, have undermined ASEAN's collective stance and its decision to exclude the junta from high-level meetings.72 While Thailand's new government has signaled a return to supporting the 5PC 22, the underlying divisions within the bloc persist.

Mechanisms and Their Limits

ASEAN has employed several mechanisms to address the crisis, but each faces significant limitations:

  • Special Envoy: The role of the Special Envoy is crucial for mediation, but its effectiveness is hampered by being tied to the annual rotating ASEAN Chairmanship. Each new chair (Brunei 2021, Cambodia 2022, Indonesia 2023, Laos 2024, Malaysia 2025) brings a different approach and must essentially restart engagement efforts.69 Brunei's envoy, Erywan Yusof, took a firm stance on access 26, while Cambodia's Prak Sokhonn engaged more directly with the junta, drawing criticism.58 Laos' Alounkeo Kittikhoun met the junta leader 93, whereas Malaysia's Othman Hashim reportedly declined to meet Min Aung Hlaing during an initial visit but met other officials and resistance groups.93 The lack of a permanent secretariat dedicated to Myanmar further hinders continuity and consistent strategy.69 Calls to institutionalize the envoy role with a longer mandate and dedicated resources have been made but not adopted.69 Recent activities include briefings to the UN Security Council and meetings with SAC and NUG representatives.55

  • Exclusion Policy: Since late 2021, ASEAN decided to bar SAC political representatives from its Summits and Foreign Ministers' Meetings due to the lack of progress on the 5PC.26 While unprecedented, this policy has been inconsistently applied. Junta officials continue to participate in hundreds of other ASEAN sectoral meetings 86, and some member states maintain bilateral engagement or host informal talks involving the junta.53 Myanmar sent a non-political representative to the January 2024 Foreign Ministers' Retreat 22, but a Foreign Ministry official reportedly attended the October 2024 ASEAN Summits, marking a potential softening or inconsistency.86

  • Troika Plus: Introduced by Indonesia during its 2024 chairmanship, this mechanism involves the past, present, and future ASEAN chairs (the Troika) potentially augmented by other key states ('Plus').2 It aims to provide continuity and allow a smaller, more agile group to take diplomatic action, bypassing the need for full consensus among all ten members.2 Its long-term effectiveness remains to be seen.

Impact on ASEAN Centrality and Credibility

The Myanmar crisis represents a profound test for ASEAN's credibility, relevance, and the principle of ASEAN Centrality – the idea that ASEAN should be the primary driver of regional diplomacy and architecture.1 The bloc's inability to enforce its own consensus or significantly impact the situation on the ground has severely damaged its reputation.1 ASEAN lacks coercive mechanisms and a diplomatic culture supportive of punitive measures, limiting its toolkit.1 Its reliance on external actors, notably China, to prompt action on issues like transnational crime originating from Myanmar, further undermines claims of centrality.1 Civil society groups and some member states have openly called for ASEAN to abandon the failed 5PC and adopt a more decisive approach.10 The 5PC's failure has also provided a convenient excuse for some external powers to defer meaningful action, waiting for an ASEAN-led solution that has not materialized.58

The core dilemma for ASEAN lies in the tension between its foundational principles of non-interference and consensus-building, and the demands of a crisis characterized by mass atrocities and regional instability.13 These principles, designed to maintain unity among diverse member states, become paralyzing when confronted with a member state actively violating regional norms and its own commitments. The 5PC, requiring cooperation from an unwilling junta, exemplifies this paralysis.2 Without enforcement mechanisms or the political will to bypass consensus, ASEAN struggles to exert meaningful pressure.1 The vacuum created by this inaction is inevitably filled by external powers like China, further diminishing ASEAN's role.1 Consequently, ASEAN risks marginalization in managing major regional security challenges, potentially leading to greater instability and increased great power competition within Southeast Asia.1

4. China's Strategic Balancing Act: Interests, Influence, and Intervention

China's approach to the Myanmar crisis since the 2021 coup has been characterized by pragmatic flexibility, prioritizing its own strategic and economic interests above all else. Beijing maintains a complex dual-engagement strategy, interacting with both the SAC junta and various powerful EAOs, particularly those along their shared border.30 This allows China to hedge its bets, maintain leverage over all key players, and pursue its objectives irrespective of the political dynamics within Myanmar.

Core Interests Driving China's Policy

Several core interests dictate China's actions in Myanmar:

  • Border Stability and Security: China shares a long and porous border with Myanmar, primarily with Shan and Kachin states, areas often marked by conflict and weak state control.83 Beijing's paramount concern is preventing instability from spilling over into its Yunnan province, which includes managing refugee flows and combating rampant transnational crime originating from Myanmar.1 Illicit activities such as drug trafficking (Myanmar being the world's largest opium producer post-coup 83), human trafficking, and particularly the explosion of online scam centers targeting Chinese citizens, have become major priorities.25 China's frustration with the junta's initial inaction on scam centers, many operated in zones controlled by junta-aligned militias 25, led Beijing to pressure neighboring countries like Thailand 1 and tacitly support the EAO-led Operation 1027, which explicitly targeted these criminal enterprises in the Kokang region.30

  • Economic Interests (BRI/CMEC): China is Myanmar's largest trading partner and a principal source of foreign investment, historically exceeding $25 billion.32 Central to its economic strategy is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), manifested in the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC).33 This ambitious project aims to connect China's landlocked Yunnan province to the Indian Ocean via Myanmar, featuring key infrastructure like the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and deep-sea port, extensive oil and gas pipelines (already operational), and proposed railway and road networks (e.g., Muse-Mandalay railway).3 Protecting these multi-billion dollar investments and ensuring access to Myanmar's significant natural resources (rare earths, timber, minerals, energy) are critical objectives.28

  • Geostrategic Position: Myanmar's location provides China with vital strategic access to the Indian Ocean, offering an alternative energy and trade route that bypasses the potential chokepoint of the Malacca Strait.33 Maintaining significant influence in Naypyitaw allows Beijing to project power westward, secure its energy supply lines, and counter the perceived strategic encirclement by the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific.71

Post-Coup Engagement and Mediation Efforts

China initially expressed displeasure with the 2021 coup, as it disrupted a period of warming ties with the NLD government under Aung San Suu Kyi, which had been more amenable to advancing BRI projects.71 However, Beijing quickly adapted, adopting a pragmatic approach focused on safeguarding its interests. It has since increased high-level engagement with the SAC junta, offering political legitimacy and economic lifelines.1 Notable interactions include Foreign Minister Qin Gang's visit in May 2023 and Min Aung Hlaing's first post-coup visit to China in November 2024.71 China has also positioned itself as a key mediator in the conflict, leveraging its influence with both the junta and northern EAOs.30 Following Operation 1027, China brokered ceasefires between the SAC and the Three Brotherhood Alliance, holding talks in Kunming.3 These efforts often involve applying pressure, such as demanding EAOs halt offensives or relinquish control of strategic locations like Lashio.3 While officially supporting ASEAN's role 117, China frequently acts unilaterally or bilaterally, reflecting its dominant influence.75 Beijing also engages with the UN Special Envoy on Myanmar.89

Impact of Conflict on CMEC/BRI Projects

The escalating civil war has severely hampered progress on the CMEC and other BRI projects.6 Instability, security risks, and shifting territorial control have stalled major initiatives. The crucial Muse-Mandalay railway project is currently on hold.105 While agreements related to the Kyaukphyu SEZ and deep-sea port continue to be signed 33, their implementation faces significant challenges, particularly with the Arakan Army consolidating control in Rakhine State.28 The conflict directly threatens infrastructure, increases project costs, and endangers personnel.32 Furthermore, control over border crossings and trade routes, essential for the CMEC, has become a key objective for warring factions, leading to disruptions and fighting centered around these strategic points.105 The table below summarizes the status of key projects:

Table 1: Status of Key China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) Projects Post-Coup


Project Name

Stated Investment Value

Location/Region

Post-Coup Status

Key Challenges/Notes

Relevant Snippets

Kyaukphyu SEZ & Deep-Sea Port

US $1.5 billion (SEZ), US $1.3 billion (Port)

Kyaukphyu, Rakhine State

Ongoing (Agreements signed Dec 2023, Feb 2025), but facing threats

Located in area with increasing Arakan Army (AA) control; potential local opposition; strategic priority for China (Indian Ocean access).

28

Muse-Mandalay Railway

US $8.9 billion

Shan State to Mandalay Region

Stalled/On Hold

Crosses active conflict zones; centerpiece of CMEC land connectivity.

104

China-Myanmar Oil & Gas Pipelines

N/A (Pre-BRI/CMEC, operational)

Rakhine State to Yunnan Province

Operational, but security is a concern

Existing infrastructure requires protection amidst conflict; key strategic asset for China's energy security.

83

Border Economic Cooperation Zones (e.g., Chinshwehaw, Kanpiketi)

US $22.4 million (Kanpiketi)

Shan State, Kachin State

Planning/Ongoing (Kanpiketi)

Dependent on border stability; control contested by EAOs; linked to trade and crime issues.

104

New Yangon City Project

US $1.5 billion

Yangon Region

Planning

Large-scale urban development, likely delayed by political instability.

104

Kyaukphyu Power Plant (LNG/Gas)

US $180 million (Gas) / US $2.5 billion (Mee Lin Gyaing LNG)

Kyaukphyu, Rakhine State / Ayeyarwady Region

Partially Operational/Ongoing (Gas plant faced shutdowns); LNG Approved

Energy projects linked to SEZ and national grid; subject to security risks and operational challenges.

104

The pursuit of these interests leads China to perform a delicate balancing act. Its interventions, such as brokering ceasefires after Operation 1027 or pressuring the junta on scam centers, are primarily tactical responses to immediate threats to border stability or economic assets.3 This approach lacks a comprehensive strategy for resolving the underlying political conflict. By engaging pragmatically with whoever controls territory relevant to its interests – be it the SAC or powerful EAOs – China maintains flexibility but avoids committing fully to either side.32 This is evident in its simultaneous provision of political support to the junta while leveraging ties with EAOs, sometimes even allowing or encouraging EAO actions that weaken the junta when it serves Chinese objectives (like the anti-scam crackdown).30 The stalling of major CMEC projects underscores the limits of China's influence when faced with widespread instability.105

This pragmatic, interest-driven approach inadvertently contributes to the conflict's intractability. Providing lifelines to the junta helps it survive, while engagement with EAOs grants them legitimacy and resources, potentially fueling further conflict rather than fostering resolution. China's focus on narrow concerns like scam centers or specific border stability issues might achieve short-term gains but fails to address the root causes of the crisis. This could ultimately jeopardize its own long-term strategic goals, such as the viability of the CMEC and sustained regional influence, especially given the rising anti-China sentiment reported among some segments of the Myanmar population and resistance groups.71

5. Russia: The Junta's Military and Diplomatic Pillar

In stark contrast to the cautious pragmatism of China or the condemnatory stance of Western nations, Russia has emerged as the Myanmar junta's most unequivocal and crucial international supporter since the 2021 coup.67 This relationship, rooted in long-standing military ties, has deepened significantly as both regimes face increasing international isolation and sanctions.67 Russia was the only major power to acknowledge the Tatmadaw's takeover, and Myanmar reciprocated by becoming one of the few countries globally to endorse Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.70

Military Cooperation: Arms and Training

The cornerstone of the Russia-Myanmar relationship is defense cooperation. Russia is a primary supplier of advanced military hardware to the Tatmadaw, a role that has become even more critical post-coup.67 Moscow provides sophisticated weaponry, most notably combat aircraft such as MiG-29 fighters, Yak-130 ground attack jets, and Mi-35 helicopter gunships, along with transport helicopters.67 These air assets are instrumental in the junta's brutal counter-insurgency campaigns, enabling indiscriminate airstrikes against civilian populations and resistance strongholds.47 A 2023 UN report estimated that Russian entities shipped over $406 million worth of arms and related materials to the Myanmar military since the coup.70 This continued supply occurs despite a significant overall decline in Russia's global arms exports following its invasion of Ukraine and subsequent sanctions, highlighting the strategic value Moscow places on the Myanmar market.125 There are even reports suggesting Russia sought to buy back previously supplied military components from Myanmar due to its own wartime needs, indicating the complex flow of materiel.127 Beyond hardware, Russia provides extensive military training and education, with thousands of Myanmar officers having attended Russian military academies since 2001.67 Recent reports also suggest potential cooperation on drone technology.124

Energy and Nuclear Cooperation

Post-coup, energy cooperation has emerged as another significant pillar of the relationship. Facing energy shortages and seeking alternatives to Western markets, Myanmar has turned to Russia for oil imports, leading to a dramatic spike in shipments from Russia starting in 2023.70 More strategically significant is the burgeoning cooperation in nuclear energy. Myanmar has partnered with Russia's state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, to explore hydro, wind, and nuclear power options.70 Since the coup, multiple agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) have been signed, culminating in an intergovernmental agreement in March 2025 for the construction of a Russian-designed small modular reactor (SMR) power plant in Myanmar.70 This project envisions an initial capacity of 110 MW, potentially expandable to 330 MW.129 Rosatom is involved in developing nuclear infrastructure, training personnel, shaping public opinion, and establishing regulatory frameworks for nuclear safety.70 A Nuclear Technology Information Center was opened in Yangon in February 2023.70 While framed as peaceful energy cooperation, these developments have revived long-standing concerns about the junta's potential nuclear weapon ambitions.119

Diplomatic Support and High-Level Engagement

Russia provides invaluable diplomatic protection for the SAC regime, particularly within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).67 Moscow, often alongside China, consistently blocks stronger international action against the junta. Both countries abstained from UNSC Resolution 2669 in December 2022, which demanded an end to violence and the release of political prisoners but stopped short of imposing mandatory sanctions or an arms embargo.134 Russia has vetoed previous, stronger draft resolutions on Myanmar 134 and maintains that the situation in Myanmar does not constitute a threat to international peace and security, framing Western pressure as illegitimate interference.75

This diplomatic alignment is reinforced by frequent high-level contacts. Min Aung Hlaing has made multiple trips to Russia since the coup, meeting with President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, and former Defence Minister Shoigu.56 Russian dignitaries, including Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Fomin (who attended the junta's Armed Forces Day parade shortly after the coup) and Foreign Minister Lavrov, have also visited Naypyitaw.70 These visits serve to solidify the partnership, broker deals, and provide the isolated junta chief with a degree of international recognition.70

The deepening relationship between Russia and Myanmar's junta is fundamentally a partnership of pariahs, driven by mutual benefit derived from their shared isolation and anti-Western posture. For Moscow, Myanmar represents a willing buyer for its arms exports, a potential new energy market, a supportive voice on the international stage, and a strategic foothold in Southeast Asia.67 For the SAC, Russia offers the military means (especially air power) essential for its survival against a growing insurgency, diplomatic cover preventing stronger international action, and a veneer of legitimacy through high-level engagement.67 This symbiotic relationship significantly enables the junta's violent repression and obstructs efforts towards peace and accountability. The expansion into nuclear cooperation adds a worrying dimension, raising proliferation risks and further integrating Myanmar into a geopolitical bloc opposed to democratic norms and international law.119

6. United States Policy: Pressure, Principles, and Practicalities

The United States has adopted a policy towards post-coup Myanmar centered on condemning the military takeover, applying targeted pressure on the junta, supporting democratic forces, and addressing the humanitarian crisis, often in coordination with allies and partners. Washington unequivocally denounced the February 2021 coup as a "direct assault on the country's transition to democracy and the rule of law" 19 and has consistently refused to recognize the legitimacy of the SAC junta.146 U.S. official statements from President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and the State Department have repeatedly called for an immediate end to violence, the release of all political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi and Win Myint, unhindered humanitarian access, and a return to an inclusive democratic path.15

Sanctions Regime

A key pillar of U.S. policy has been the imposition of sanctions. Executive Order 14014, issued shortly after the coup in February 2021, provides the authority for these measures.19 Since then, multiple rounds of sanctions have targeted a wide range of individuals and entities deemed responsible for or supportive of the coup and subsequent repression.19 Designated parties include senior military leaders (Min Aung Hlaing, Soe Win), SAC members, military-appointed ministers, adult children and spouses of designated individuals, military-owned conglomerates Myanma Economic Holdings Public Company Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC), arms dealers, jet fuel suppliers crucial for the military's air campaign, and various cronies and companies providing financial or material support to the regime.24 Notably, in June 2023, the U.S. sanctioned two key state-owned banks, Myanma Foreign Trade Bank (MFTB) and Myanma Investment and Commercial Bank (MICB), for facilitating the regime's access to foreign currency.77 In October 2023, Treasury prohibited U.S. persons from providing financial services to or for the benefit of Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), the junta's single largest source of foreign revenue, though stopping short of a full blocking designation as imposed by the EU.77 The U.S. has emphasized coordination with allies like the UK, Canada, EU, and Australia in implementing these sanctions to maximize pressure.24 Business advisories have also been issued to warn companies of the risks associated with operating in certain sectors in Myanmar.154

Support for Democratic Forces and the BURMA Act

The U.S. government states its commitment to supporting the Myanmar people's struggle for democracy.19 This includes diplomatic engagement with the NUG and other pro-democracy movement organizations 39 and providing funding for programs related to democracy promotion, human rights, civil society strengthening, and independent media support.41

The Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act (BURMA Act), passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023, codified and expanded upon these policies.79 Key provisions include: authorizing sanctions against junta officials and entities; calling for enhanced policy coordination and UN action (including a global arms embargo); authorizing appropriations for FY2023-2027 for programs strengthening federalism, supporting democratic institutions, documenting atrocities (including support for the UN's Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar - IIMM), and crucially, providing "technical support and non-lethal assistance" to EAOs, PDFs, and pro-democracy organizations.39

However, the implementation of the BURMA Act has faced criticism.39 Concerns have been raised about the slow pace, insufficient funding levels compared to perceived needs (resistance groups requested $525 million for FY24, while $121 million was allocated, including only $25 million for non-lethal/technical support 114), and an overly narrow interpretation of "non-lethal assistance" by the State Department and USAID.39 Unlike support provided to Ukraine, items like body armor, advanced communication equipment, or drone jammers have reportedly not been provided to Myanmar's resistance forces under this authority.39 This has led to disappointment among resistance groups and accusations that the Act raised false hopes.157 The junta, predictably, condemned the Act as U.S. support for "terrorism".114 While the Act provides discretionary authority for more robust support, the political will and resource allocation remain subjects of debate.79

Humanitarian Assistance and Diplomatic Coordination

The U.S. has historically been a major provider of humanitarian assistance to Myanmar through USAID.46 Post-coup aid has continued, focusing on life-saving assistance for IDPs, refugees, and conflict-affected communities.46 However, significant concerns emerged in early 2025 regarding drastic cuts to USAID funding under the Trump administration.51 Reports indicated suspensions of funding across various sectors (humanitarian, health, education, media support) and a potential $1.1 billion loss in foreign assistance over the term.62 These cuts severely impacted health services along the Thai-Myanmar border, refugee support programs, and independent media outlets.61 The timing coincided with the March 2025 earthquake, where the reduced USAID capacity (staff firings, program closures) significantly hampered the U.S. ability to lead or effectively contribute to the disaster response, despite an initial pledge of $2 million.45 This raised questions about the sustainability and reliability of U.S. aid commitments.45

Diplomatically, the U.S. engages with regional partners, particularly ASEAN, nominally supporting the 5PC while acknowledging its shortcomings.19 Washington coordinates policy actions, especially sanctions, with allies like the EU, UK, Canada, and Australia.24 It participates in multilateral groupings like the Quad, issuing joint statements on regional stability and coordinating responses, such as post-earthquake aid pledges.63 The U.S. also advocates for stronger UN action, including pressing for UNSC measures like an arms embargo.79

U.S. policy toward Myanmar thus represents a complex effort to balance punitive measures against the junta with support for democratic principles and humanitarian relief. Sanctions impose costs but struggle against the junta's diversified revenue streams and illicit economies.77 Support for democratic forces, codified in the BURMA Act, faces implementation hurdles and debates over the appropriate level and type of assistance.39 Humanitarian aid efforts are crucial but vulnerable to political shifts and funding volatility.45 Diplomacy relies heavily on coordination with allies and a divided ASEAN.19 This multifaceted approach exerts pressure but has yet to achieve a decisive breakthrough in altering the junta's behavior or resolving the conflict. The inconsistency or potential reduction in support risks undermining both the resistance movement and U.S. influence, potentially ceding ground to other major powers.

7. European Union: Sanctions, Aid, and Values

The European Union's response to the Myanmar crisis has been firmly grounded in its commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, leading to strong condemnation of the military coup and consistent refusal to recognize the SAC junta's legitimacy.24 Brussels has employed a combination of targeted sanctions, substantial humanitarian assistance, and diplomatic engagement, often in coordination with international partners, to pressure the regime and support the Myanmar people.

Comprehensive Sanctions Regime

A central element of the EU's policy is its robust sanctions regime against the Myanmar junta. Since the coup, the EU has implemented multiple rounds of restrictive measures – at least nine by October 2024 24 – targeting individuals and entities responsible for undermining democracy, committing human rights violations, and enabling the regime's violence. As of late 2024/early 2025, these measures encompassed 106 individuals and 22 entities.31 Targets include SAC members, senior military officials, government ministers, military-owned conglomerates (MEHL, MEC), state-owned enterprises, arms suppliers, and cronies facilitating the junta's activities, including those involved in lucrative scam operations based in border areas.24

The sanctions typically involve asset freezes within EU jurisdictions, travel bans for individuals, and prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available to those listed.165 Beyond targeted listings, the EU maintains a comprehensive arms embargo, export restrictions on dual-use goods and equipment that could be used for internal repression (like surveillance technology), and a prohibition on military training and cooperation with the Tatmadaw.15 Significantly, the EU took the step of sanctioning the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), the junta's primary source of foreign currency, in February 2022 168, a measure the US approached more cautiously initially, opting instead for restrictions on financial services involving MOGE later in 2023.77 The EU emphasizes coordination with partners like the UK, Canada, and the US to maximize the impact of these sanctions.24 However, the effectiveness of sanctions is somewhat mitigated by the lack of universal application, with some countries like Switzerland notably refraining from sanctioning MOGE.168

Substantial Humanitarian Aid

The EU is a leading global humanitarian donor and has significantly scaled up its assistance to Myanmar since the coup.57 Building on decades of support since 1994, total EU humanitarian funding for Myanmar has surpassed €456 million.44 Allocations have increased annually to address the escalating needs; for 2025, the initial allocation of €33 million was increased to over €46 million by April, following the earthquake.44 This includes specific emergency funding released immediately after the March 2025 earthquake (€2.5 million initial, plus €10 million additional, and €500,000 via IFRC).44 EU funding supports a wide range of critical needs, including food assistance, nutrition, clean water and sanitation (WASH), shelter, healthcare, emergency education, and protection services like mine risk education.44 A core principle of EU aid delivery is bypassing the junta authorities; funds are channeled directly through thoroughly vetted international and local humanitarian organizations (over 100 local partners) operating based on humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, ensuring aid reaches vulnerable populations even in hard-to-reach areas.44 The EU is also a major contributor to UN agencies like UNICEF working on the ground.43

Diplomatic Engagement and Values-Based Approach

Diplomatically, the EU appointed a Special Envoy for Myanmar, Igor Driesmans, to facilitate engagement.31 Brussels participates actively in EU-ASEAN forums, such as the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) and Ministerial Meetings, where the Myanmar crisis is a regular agenda item.24 While generally supporting ASEAN's centrality and the 5PC framework as the main regional initiative, EU officials have also publicly acknowledged the consensus's failure and the lack of progress.15 The EU issues joint statements with the US, Quad members, and other like-minded partners condemning the junta's actions and calling for dialogue and humanitarian access.15 The EU's engagement extends to the democratic opposition; the European Parliament formally recognized the NUG and the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) as legitimate representatives of Myanmar 176, and the NUG maintains representation offices in EU member states like France and the Czech Republic.162 The NUG has publicly welcomed EU sanctions and the appointment of the Special Envoy.171 However, the EU's principled stance sometimes creates friction, as seen in the controversy surrounding the potential participation of junta representatives in the EU-ASEAN Human Rights Dialogue in October 2023, which led to boycotts by civil society organizations.98 The EU also strongly supports international accountability mechanisms, backing efforts at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute atrocities, including the genocide against the Rohingya.162

Table 2: Comparative Overview of Key US/EU Sanctions Post-Coup


Sanctioning Body

Date Range

Key Individual Targets

Key Entity Targets

Type of Sanction

Stated Objective

Relevant Snippets

United States (US)

Feb 2021 - Present

SAC members, Military Leaders (Min Aung Hlaing, Soe Win), Ministers, Family Members, Cronies

MEHL, MEC, MFTB, MICB, Arms Dealers, Jet Fuel Suppliers, Specific Companies (e.g., Shwe Byain Phyu, Myanma Five Star Line), Defense Sector Entities

Asset Freeze, Travel Ban, Financial Service Restrictions (incl. re: MOGE), Entity List additions (Commerce Dept.)

Pressure regime, Promote accountability, Disrupt revenue/military supplies, Restore democracy

19

European Union (EU)

Mar 2021 - Present

SAC members, Military Leaders, Ministers, Cronies, Military Commanders (106 individuals as of late 2024)

MEHL, MEC, MOGE (Direct listing), Mining Enterprises (ME1, ME2), Arms Suppliers (e.g., Star Sapphire, Royal Shune Lei), Entities linked to scam operations (e.g., CLM Group) (22 entities as of late 2024)

Asset Freeze, Travel Ban, Arms Embargo, Export Restrictions (Dual-use, Surveillance tech), Ban on Military Training/Cooperation

Condemn coup/repression, Promote accountability, Cut off funds/resources, Support democratic transition

24

The EU's approach demonstrates a relatively unified stance compared to the divisions within ASEAN, driven primarily by its normative commitments. Sanctions and substantial humanitarian aid are its primary levers of influence. While its actions, particularly the earlier and more direct sanctioning of MOGE, sometimes appear more assertive than initial US steps, the EU's overall impact remains constrained by the same geopolitical realities: the junta's intransigence, its backing by Russia and China, and the limitations inherent in coordinating with a fractured ASEAN.15 The EU thus functions as a significant normative and financial actor, maintaining pressure and providing vital relief, but struggling to fundamentally alter the conflict's trajectory in the face of entrenched authoritarianism and competing global interests.

8. Intersecting Interests and Geopolitical Fault Lines

The international response to the Myanmar crisis is deeply fragmented, not only by institutional limitations like those within ASEAN but fundamentally by the competing strategic interests and divergent geopolitical outlooks of the major external powers involved: China, Russia, the United States, and the European Union. Myanmar has become a critical arena where these competing visions clash, overlaying the complex internal conflict dynamics and contributing significantly to the ongoing stalemate and sense of "saturation".8

Competing Visions and Objectives

The primary external actors approach Myanmar with vastly different goals:

  • China: Beijing's policy is driven by pragmatism and a focus on securing its periphery. Its core objectives are maintaining stability along its border with Myanmar to prevent conflict spillover and refugee influxes; protecting its substantial economic investments, particularly the strategic CMEC/BRI projects providing access to the Indian Ocean; ensuring continued access to Myanmar's natural resources; and consolidating its influence in a key Southeast Asian state while countering U.S. presence.1 To achieve this, China engages with both the SAC junta and relevant EAOs, using mediation, pressure, and economic incentives as tools to manage instability and safeguard its interests.30

  • Russia: Moscow views Myanmar through the lens of its broader confrontation with the West and its desire to project influence globally. Its primary interests lie in cultivating a reliable ally in Southeast Asia, expanding its arms market (especially important given losses elsewhere), securing potential naval access to the Indian Ocean, providing diplomatic support to a fellow internationally isolated regime, and promoting an anti-Western, authoritarian-friendly world order.67 Its policy is almost exclusively focused on bolstering the SAC junta through military supplies and diplomatic protection.67

  • United States: Washington's approach is framed by its commitment to promoting democracy and human rights, countering authoritarianism, and maintaining regional stability in the Indo-Pacific. Key objectives include the restoration of civilian democratic rule in Myanmar, holding the junta accountable for atrocities, supporting pro-democracy forces (NUG, civil society), alleviating the humanitarian crisis, and checking the influence of strategic rivals China and Russia.19 Its tools include targeted sanctions, diplomatic pressure, humanitarian aid, and authorized support (like the BURMA Act) for non-junta actors.19

  • European Union: The EU shares many of the US's objectives, driven by a strong normative commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.24 It seeks stability, accountability for abuses, and a return to democratic governance. Its primary instruments are sanctions (sometimes more robust than initial US measures), significant humanitarian assistance delivered through non-regime channels, support for international justice mechanisms, and diplomatic engagement coordinated with partners.15

  • ASEAN: The regional bloc's official goal is a peaceful resolution facilitated by its 5PC, aimed at maintaining regional stability and asserting ASEAN's central role in managing regional affairs.1 However, its effectiveness is crippled by internal disagreements reflecting member states' own interests, adherence to non-interference, and varying degrees of alignment with or dependence on the major external powers.1

Areas of Convergence and Conflict Among Powers

These divergent interests create clear fault lines:

  • China-Russia Alignment: Beijing and Moscow find common cause in propping up the SAC junta, opposing Western sanctions and "interference," and challenging the US-led order.67 They coordinate diplomatically, especially at the UNSC, to shield the junta from stronger international measures.75 While potential areas of competition exist (e.g., arms sales, long-term influence), their shared anti-Western stance currently overrides these.67

  • US-EU Convergence: Washington and Brussels are largely aligned in their condemnation of the junta, support for democratic forces, use of sanctions, and provision of humanitarian aid.15 They coordinate sanctions and diplomatic messaging, often issuing joint statements.15 Both express frustration with ASEAN's lack of progress while rhetorically supporting its centrality.15 Minor differences may exist in the specific timing or scope of sanctions.77

  • China vs. US/EU Conflict: This represents the core geopolitical tension surrounding Myanmar. China's backing of the junta directly contradicts Western goals of democratic restoration and accountability.71 Western sanctions targeting junta revenue streams (like MOGE or state banks) potentially impact Chinese economic interests or partners.77 Conversely, US/EU support for the NUG and resistance groups is viewed negatively by Beijing.39 Myanmar becomes a proxy arena for the broader US-China strategic competition.52

  • ASEAN's Position: The bloc is caught between these competing forces. It seeks to maintain its leadership role but is often influenced or bypassed by major powers.1 External actions can either bolster or undermine ASEAN's efforts; for instance, China's unilateral mediation contrasts with US/EU calls for ASEAN-led processes.1 ASEAN members themselves have varying alignments with external powers, further complicating a unified stance.181

Impact on Conflict Trajectory

The involvement of these external powers with competing agendas directly fuels the conflict's protraction and intractability.1 Russia's arms supplies and China's economic and diplomatic backing provide the junta with the means and resilience to continue fighting despite losses.1 Support from the US, EU, and potentially others for resistance groups, while often limited or focused on non-lethal aid, helps sustain their campaign.39 The lack of a unified international front prevents effective pressure on the junta to negotiate or compromise.1 Competing mediation tracks (ASEAN vs. China) can create confusion or allow parties to forum shop.3

This geopolitical overlay transforms Myanmar's internal struggle into a complex international problem where major power rivalries intersect with local conflict dynamics. The divergent interests of China, Russia, the US, and the EU prevent the formation of a cohesive international strategy capable of pushing for a sustainable resolution. ASEAN, caught in this crossfire and hampered by its own limitations, is increasingly unable to play the central mediating role it aspires to. This reality makes finding a peaceful path forward exceptionally challenging, as any potential solution likely requires a degree of consensus or deconfliction among the major external players – a prospect that seems distant in the current global climate. The risk of Myanmar descending further into fragmentation or becoming an overt proxy battleground remains alarmingly high.39

9. Conclusion: Navigating the Impasse - Saturation, Stalemate, and the Path Forward

Four years on from the military coup, Myanmar is caught in a devastating spiral of violence and humanitarian suffering, exacerbated by a fragmented and largely ineffective international response. The crisis has reached a point of geopolitical saturation, where the sheer number of actors with competing interests and the failure of existing diplomatic frameworks have created a dynamic but seemingly unbreakable stalemate.

The international community's efforts have been characterized by a lack of coordination and decisive impact. ASEAN's Five-Point Consensus, the designated regional framework, has demonstrably failed, rendered impotent by the junta's intransigence, the bloc's internal divisions, and its adherence to the principle of non-interference.1 While ASEAN struggles, external powers pursue divergent agendas. China engages pragmatically with all sides, prioritizing border stability and the security of its vast economic investments (CMEC/BRI), intervening tactically through mediation or pressure but stopping short of seeking a comprehensive political solution.32 Russia acts as the junta's primary military and diplomatic enabler, providing crucial weaponry and shielding it from international accountability efforts at the UN Security Council.67 The United States and the European Union, broadly aligned in their goals of restoring democracy and promoting human rights, have deployed targeted sanctions and provided significant humanitarian aid.19 However, the impact of these measures is limited by enforcement challenges, the junta's access to alternative resources, and potential inconsistencies in policy implementation, such as the debated scope of the US BURMA Act and recent volatility in USAID funding.39 The UN, particularly the Security Council, remains largely paralyzed due to the geopolitical divisions embodied by China and Russia's positions.75

This complex geopolitical landscape, layered upon a brutal internal conflict where the junta is weakened but resilient and the resistance is gaining ground but remains fragmented, defines the current stalemate. It is a deadlock sustained by external support flowing to different sides, preventing any decisive outcome while prolonging the suffering of the Myanmar people. The existing international approaches – reliance on the failed 5PC, uncoordinated sanctions, competing mediation efforts, and partisan external support – have proven inadequate.

A recalibration of the international strategy is urgently needed. Continuing to defer to the 5PC framework is untenable. While acknowledging the complexities and the limited influence any single actor may possess, a more coordinated, pragmatic, and principled approach is necessary:

  1. Prioritize Civilian Protection and Humanitarian Access: Given the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe, exacerbated by the March 2025 earthquake, a concerted international effort, led by donors (US, EU, Japan, Australia) and crucially involving neighboring countries (Thailand, China, India, Bangladesh), must focus on ensuring life-saving aid reaches all populations in need, regardless of territorial control. This requires exploring and expanding robust cross-border aid mechanisms and pressuring all parties, especially the junta, to allow safe and unimpeded access.39 Addressing the critical funding shortfalls, potentially worsened by shifts in US policy, is paramount.42

  2. Strengthen and Coordinate Pressure on the Junta: Like-minded nations (US, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea) must enhance coordination and enforcement of targeted sanctions aimed at depriving the junta of revenue (particularly from MOGE and military-linked enterprises) and access to weapons and jet fuel.24 Diplomatic pressure should be exerted on regional states, especially financial hubs like Singapore and transit countries like Thailand, to prevent sanctions evasion.76 Continued advocacy for a global arms embargo at the UNSC remains politically important, even if vetoes are expected.67

  3. Engage Holistically with Resistance and Pro-Democracy Forces: International actors should broaden and deepen engagement with the spectrum of anti-junta forces, including the NUG, the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC), and key EAOs, recognizing their crucial role in Myanmar's future.4 Support should focus on fostering greater unity among these groups and facilitating the development of a shared, inclusive vision for a federal democratic Myanmar that addresses long-standing ethnic grievances and guarantees rights for all, including the Rohingya.4 Provision of technical and non-lethal assistance, as authorized by frameworks like the BURMA Act, should be implemented strategically and transparently, though recognizing the existing challenges and debates surrounding its scope.39

  4. Uphold Accountability: The pursuit of justice for the widespread atrocities committed, including potential genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, must remain a core component of the international response. This involves sustained support for international mechanisms like the ICC, ICJ, and the IIMM, as well as efforts to document abuses and preserve evidence.23

  5. Navigate Great Power Dynamics Pragmatically: Recognizing the significant influence of China and Russia, engagement strategies must be pragmatic. While countering actions that prolong the conflict or undermine international norms, opportunities for constructive dialogue with Beijing on areas of shared concern (like transnational crime or regional stability) should be explored.74 Actions that might unnecessarily consolidate Sino-Russian support for the junta should be carefully weighed.67

The crisis in Myanmar is not merely a domestic issue but a regional and international challenge with profound geopolitical implications. The current state of saturation and stalemate underscores the failure of piecemeal and competing approaches. Breaking the impasse requires moving beyond exhausted frameworks, fostering greater international unity among those seeking a democratic outcome, applying consistent and coordinated pressure on the junta and its enablers, providing robust support for the Myanmar people's humanitarian needs and democratic aspirations, and pursuing accountability with determination. The path forward is fraught with difficulty, but the cost of continued inaction and fragmentation is unacceptably high for Myanmar and the wider region.

Works cited

  1. Myanmar shows ASEAN centrality is weakening - East Asia Forum, accessed May 4, 2025, https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/03/14/myanmar-shows-asean-centrality-is-weakening/

  2. Time to end ASEAN's accommodative approach in Myanmar - Academia - The Jakarta Post, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2025/02/12/time-to-end-aseans-accommodative-approach-in-myanmar.html

  3. Myanmar | Crisis Group, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar

  4. APRSA 2023 | Chapter 6: Conflict in Myanmar and the International Response, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/asia-pacific-regional-security-assessment-2023/aprsa-chapter-6/

  5. Myanmar's Troubled History: Coups, Military Rule, and Ethnic Conflict, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/myanmar-history-coup-military-rule-ethnic-conflict-rohingya

  6. Full article: Road through a broken place: the BRI in post-coup Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2024.2420929

  7. Navigating Sovereignty, Security and Humanity: The ASEAN Way and the Rohingya Crisis, accessed May 4, 2025, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/13/navigating-sovereignty-security-and-humanity-the-asean-way-and-the-rohingya-crisis/

  8. An Analysis of Various International Responses to the Conflict in Myanmar Compared With That in Ukraine - New Lines Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/5-UACompare.pdf

  9. Myanmar Conflict: Spiralling Crisis Requires Renewed Global Focus - Tony Blair Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/myanmar-conflict-spiralling-crisis-requires-renewed-global-focus

  10. Civil Society Position Paper: Addressing ASEAN's Goal of a “Myanmar-Owned and -Led Solution” - Progressive Voice, accessed May 4, 2025, https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2024/12/15/civil-society-position-paper-addressing-aseans-goal-of-a-myanmar-owned-and-led-solution/

  11. ASEAN Leaders' Review and Decision on the Implementation of the Five-Point Consensus, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asean.org/asean-leaders-review-and-decision-on-the-implementation-of-the-five-point-consensus-3/

  12. To ASEAN and Myanmar's Neighbors: The Time for Action Is Now - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/guest-column/to-asean-and-myanmars-neighbors-the-time-for-action-is-now.html

  13. International community beyond ASEAN must come together to resolve conflict in Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.ibanet.org/international-community-beyond-asean-must-come-together-to-resolve-conflict-in-myanmar

  14. Can ASEAN forge a political solution in Myanmar? - Lowy Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/can-asean-forge-political-solution-myanmar

  15. Myanmar: Joint statement marking three years since the military coup - EEAS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/myanmar-joint-statement-marking-three-years-military-coup_en

  16. Myanmar civil war (2021–present) - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_civil_war_(2021%E2%80%93present)

  17. Joint Statement on Myanmar - U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva, accessed May 4, 2025, https://geneva.usmission.gov/2025/01/31/joint-statement-on-myanmar/

  18. World Report 2024: Myanmar | Human Rights Watch, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/myanmar

  19. Military Coup in Burma Draws International Condemnation and Pressure, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/military-coup-in-burma-draws-international-condemnation-and-pressure/C491A657AB8011A897752040884B7021

  20. Military Coup in Burma Draws International Condemnation and Pressure - CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, accessed May 4, 2025, https://uvalaw-scholarship.s3.amazonaws.com/iss%203%20CPUS%20pt%205.pdf

  21. The role of ASEAN in the Myanmar's post-coup crisis: Breaking the stalemate? - PeaceRep, accessed May 4, 2025, https://peacerep.org/?sdm_process_download=1&download_id=21592

  22. ASEAN's solution to Myanmar is at a tipping point | East Asia Forum, accessed May 4, 2025, https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/03/12/aseans-solution-to-myanmar-is-at-a-tipping-point/

  23. As Malaysia assumes ASEAN Chair in 2025, calls grow for stronger regional coordination to end Myanmar crisis - BWI - Building and Wood Workers's International, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.bwint.org/BwiNews/NewsDetails?newsId=308

  24. Evaluating European Union actions in post-coup Myanmar - Part 1 - DVB English, accessed May 4, 2025, https://english.dvb.no/evaluating-eu-actions-in-post-coup-myanmar-part-1/

  25. ILLICIT ECONOMIES AND THE MYANMAR CIVIL WAR - Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, accessed May 4, 2025, https://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Alastair-MacBeath-Cashing-in-on-conflict-Illicit-economies-and-the-Myanmar-civil-war-GI-TOC-March-2025.pdf

  26. Myanmar Spirals Downward While ASEAN Drifts - Comparative Connections - Pacific Forum, accessed May 4, 2025, https://cc.pacforum.org/2022/01/myanmar-spirals-downward-while-asean-drifts/

  27. Myanmar's Coup Shakes Up Its Ethnic Conflicts | Crisis Group, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/myanmars-coup-shakes-its-ethnic-conflicts

  28. Myanmar's Escalating Civil War and the Limits of Chinese Intervention - BTI Blog, accessed May 4, 2025, https://blog.bti-project.org/2024/12/23/myanmars-escalating-civil-war-and-the-limits-of-chinese-intervention/

  29. Backgrounder: Ethnic Armies in Myanmar Civil War | Geopolitical Monitor, accessed May 4, 2025, https://geopoliticalmonitor.com/backgrounder-ethnic-armies-in-the-myanmar-civil-war/

  30. Carrots, sticks, and conflict: China's role in Myanmar - Observer Research Foundation, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/carrots-sticks-and-conflict-china-s-role-in-myanmar

  31. Four Years after the Coup the EU Should Increase Support for ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus/four-years-after-the-coup-eu-should-increase-support-for-myanmar-s-resistance

  32. China's Geopolitical Balancing Act in Post-coup Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/chinas-geopolitical-balancing-act-in-post-coup-myanmar/

  33. Securing the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor: Navigating Conflicts and Public Scepticism | FULCRUM, accessed May 4, 2025, https://fulcrum.sg/securing-the-china-myanmar-economic-corridor-navigating-conflicts-and-public-scepticism/

  34. China in Myanmar: How the Game-Changing Neighbor Would Continue to Maintain Its Influence - Stimson Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.stimson.org/2024/china-in-myanmar-how-the-game-changing-neighbor-would-continue-to-maintain-its-influence/

  35. Myanmar War: China's Support for Ethnic Armed Groups, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2024/07/04/myanmar-war-chinas-ethnicmilitia/

  36. Analysts: China's push for peace in Myanmar draws skepticism - VOA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.voanews.com/a/analysts-china-s-push-for-peace-in-myanmar-draws-skepticism/7887961.html

  37. APRSA 2024 | Chapter 4: Disparate Diplomacy: Managing the Post-coup Myanmar Conflict, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/asia-pacific-regional-security-assessment-2024/chapter-4/

  38. Myanmar's Precipice: The Stalemate and Internal Strife Compelling the Military toward an Election - CSIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/myanmars-precipice-stalemate-and-internal-strife-compelling-military-toward-election

  39. McConnell, Cardin, Risch, Merkley, Young Call on State Department and USAID to Revitalize the U.S. Policy on Burma - progressive voice myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2024/07/30/mcconnell-cardin-risch-merkley-young-call-on-state-department-and-usaid-to-revitalize-the-u-s-policy-on-burma/

  40. Risch, Cardin, McConnell, Merkley, Young Call on State Department and USAID to Revitalize U.S. Policy on Burma, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/risch-cardin-mcconnell-merkley-young-call-on-state-department-and-usaid-to-revitalize-us-policy-on-burma

  41. US Policy on Myanmar for 2024 and Beyond - Wilson Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/uploads/documents/2024-03_IndoPacificInTheWorld_Myers.pdf

  42. Myanmar - Unicef, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.unicef.org/media/167986/file/Myanmar-Humanitarian-SitRep-31-December-2024.pdf.pdf

  43. UNICEF Myanmar Humanitarian Situation Report No. 9, 2024, accessed May 4, 2025, https://myanmar.un.org/en/286216-unicef-myanmar-humanitarian-situation-report-no-9-2024

  44. Myanmar/Burma - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, accessed May 4, 2025, https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/asia-and-pacific/myanmarburma_en

  45. Where Is the United States? An Earthquake in Myanmar Is the First Test of President Trump's Emergency Aid Cuts - CSIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/where-united-states-earthquake-myanmar-first-test-president-trumps-emergency-aid-cuts

  46. The United States' Enduring Commitment to the Indo-Pacific: Marking Two Years Since the Release of the Administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://tl.usembassy.gov/the-united-states-enduring-commitment-to-the-indo-pacific/

  47. Compounding Devastation: The Myanmar Earthquake - CSIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/compounding-devastation-myanmar-earthquake

  48. Earthquake Pushes Myanmar's Health System to Verge of Collapse | Think Global Health, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/earthquake-pushes-myanmars-health-system-verge-collapse

  49. Myanmar earthquake one month on: A humanitarian catastrophe and what it means for the region - Asia News Network, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asianews.network/myanmar-earthquake-one-month-on-a-humanitarian-catastrophe-and-what-it-means-for-the-region/

  50. MYANMAR - ACAPS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/20250410_ACAPS_Myanmar_earthquake_Shan_pre-crisis_profile.pdf

  51. Myanmar: Junta Assault on Health Care Hinders Quake Response - ReliefWeb, accessed May 4, 2025, https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-junta-assault-health-care-hinders-quake-response-0

  52. Myanmar faces perfect storm as political stalemate deepens | Chatham House, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/06/myanmar-faces-perfect-storm-political-stalemate-deepens

  53. APHR Alarmed by ASEAN Chair's Meeting with Myanmar Junta Chief, accessed May 4, 2025, https://aseanmp.org/publications/post/aphr-alarmed-by-asean-chairs-meeting-with-myanmar-junta-chief/

  54. Myanmar junta's post-quake brutality prompts renewed justice demands, says SAC-M, accessed May 4, 2025, https://eng.mizzima.com/2025/05/03/21950

  55. Statement on Myanmar - in response to questions | United Nations Secretary-General, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/note-correspondents/2025-03-31/statement-myanmar-response-questions

  56. Myanmar: Private Meeting : What's In Blue - Security Council Report, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2025/04/myanmar-private-meeting-7.php

  57. Myanmar: Joint Statement on the Human Rights and Humanitarian ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/myanmar-joint-statement-human-rights-and-humanitarian-situation_en

  58. Myanmar: ASEAN's Failed '5-Point Consensus' a Year On | Human Rights Watch, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/22/myanmar-aseans-failed-5-point-consensus-year

  59. EU provides €2.5 million in initial emergency aid for people affected by the earthquake in Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/news-stories/news/eu-provides-eu25-million-initial-emergency-aid-people-affected-earthquake-myanmar-2025-03-28_en

  60. Myanmar: Earthquake Response Situation Report No. 4 (As of 25 April 2025) - ReliefWeb, accessed May 4, 2025, https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-earthquake-response-situation-report-no-4-25-april-2025

  61. USAID closure deepens pain of quake-hit Myanmar - Asia Times, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/usaid-closure-deepens-pain-of-quake-hit-myanmar/

  62. Myanmar and the Gutting of USAID – The Diplomat, accessed May 4, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/myanmar-and-the-gutting-of-usaid/

  63. Joint Statement by the Quad Partners on Myanmar Earthquake Response, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-by-the-quad-partners-on-myanmar-earthquake-response/

  64. Joint Statement by the Quad Partners on Myanmar Earthquake Response, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asean.usmission.gov/joint-statement-by-the-quad-partners-on-myanmar-earthquake-response/

  65. Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/

  66. UNICEF Myanmar Humanitarian Situation Report No. 8, 2024, accessed May 4, 2025, https://myanmar.un.org/en/283864-unicef-myanmar-humanitarian-situation-report-no-8-2024

  67. Coming to Terms with Myanmar's Russia Embrace | Crisis Group, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar-russia-internal/coming-terms-myanmars-russia-embrace

  68. Time for Difficult Choices on Myanmar - CSIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/time-difficult-choices-myanmar

  69. Rethinking ASEAN's Five-Point Consensus - Frontier Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/rethinking-aseans-five-point-consensus/

  70. Myanmar - Russia Partnership: Deepening Strategic Ties ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.vifindia.org/article/2025/march/19/Myanmar-Russia-Partnership-Deepening-Strategic-Ties

  71. China's Collaboration with the Myanmar Junta: A Case of Strategic Hedging? - Jamestown, accessed May 4, 2025, https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-collaboration-with-the-myanmar-junta-a-case-of-strategic-hedging/

  72. Myanmar Reveals ASEAN's Weak Spot Again • Stimson Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.stimson.org/2023/myanmar-reveals-aseans-weak-spot-again/

  73. 43 ASEAN's RESPONSE TO THE MYANMAR MILITARY COUP: FROM NON - UNISCI, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.unisci.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/UNISCIDP59-3ALI.pdf

  74. Scam Centres and Ceasefires: China-Myanmar Ties Since the Coup | Crisis Group, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/north-east-asia/china-myanmar/b179-scam-centres-and-ceasefires-china-myanmar-ties-coup

  75. Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Zhang Jun on the UN Security Council Resolution on the Situation in Myanmar_Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the UN, accessed May 4, 2025, http://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/hyyfy/202212/t20221222_10993574.htm

  76. Europe and ASEAN Should Work Together on Myanmar Crisis ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/13/europe-and-asean-should-work-together-myanmar-crisis

  77. Burma Sanctions - United States Department of State, accessed May 4, 2025, https://2021-2025.state.gov/burma-sanctions/

  78. Revisiting U.S. Policy in Myanmar - CSIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/revisiting-us-policy-myanmar

  79. What the BURMA Act Does and Doesn't Mean for U.S. Policy in ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-burma-act-does-and-doesnt-mean-us-policy-myanmar

  80. Joint Statement on US Sanctions towards Myanmar ahead of ASEAN and G20 summits, accessed May 4, 2025, https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2023/09/01/joint-statement-on-us-sanctions-towards-myanmar-ahead-of-asean-and-g20-summits/

  81. The ASEAN Chair's Steps, Nationwide General Offensive and the Path the Junta Must Choose - Issue 168 - Myanmar Peace Monitor, accessed May 4, 2025, https://mmpeacemonitor.org/en/cover-story-eng/the-asean-chairs-steps-nationwide-general-offensive-and-the-path-the-junta-must-choose-issue-168-2/

  82. ASEAN must take decisive Action on Myanmar at Upcoming Meetings in Thailand - APHR, accessed May 4, 2025, https://aseanmp.org/publications/post/asean-must-take-decisive-action-on-myanmar-at-upcoming-meetings-in-thailand/

  83. China is hedging in Myanmar by leveraging its influence - 9DashLine, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.9dashline.com/article/china-is-hedging-in-myanmar-by-leveraging-its-influence

  84. Myanmar's Armed Groups and Crime: Shan State's Case - SpecialEurasia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/01/02/myanmars-armed-groups-shan-state/

  85. Finding an End to the Myanmar Crisis: ASEAN's Massive Task, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/research/finding-an-end-to-the-myanmar-crisis-asean-s-massive-task

  86. Laos ASEAN summit to focus on Myanmar crisis - VOA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.voanews.com/a/laos-asean-summit-to-focus-on-myanmar-crisis/7813461.html

  87. Is Asean's Myanmar five-point consensus workable, and what is next? - ISIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.isis.org.my/2021/04/25/is-aseans-myanmar-five-point-consensus-workable-and-what-is-next/

  88. ASEAN, COVID-19 and Myanmar crisis: Dealing with critical juncture - PMC, accessed May 4, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9843146/

  89. Myanmar: Private Meeting : What's In Blue - Security Council Report, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2024/11/myanmar-private-meeting-6.php

  90. Myanmar: Closed Consultations : What's In Blue - Security Council Report, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2025/01/myanmar-closed-consultations-4.php

  91. Myanmar: Four years after coup, world must demand accountability for atrocity crimes, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/01/myanmar-four-years-after-coup-world-must-demand-accountability-for-atrocity-crimes/

  92. ASEAN in 2025: Challenges for the Region under Malaysia's Chairmanship | List of Articles | International Information Network Analysis, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.spf.org/iina/en/articles/shoji_23.html

  93. ASEAN's Myanmar Peace Effort in Limbo After Envoy's Visit - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/myanmars-crisis-the-world/aseans-myanmar-peace-effort-in-limbo-after-envoys-visit.html

  94. Press Room - 16 October 2021 - STATEMENT OF THE CHAIR... - Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.mfa.gov.bn/Lists/Press%20Room/news.aspx?id=947&source=https://www.mfa.gov.bn/site/home.aspx

  95. Myanmar aid convoy attack raises stakes for under-fire ASEAN | Politics News | Al Jazeera, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/9/myanmar-convoy-attack-raises-stakes-for-asean

  96. ASEAN and the Myanmar Humanitarian Crisis: Overcoming Challenges and Identifying Pathways - Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, accessed May 4, 2025, https://r2pasiapacific.org/files/9923/2023_ASEAN_Myanmar_Humanitarian_Crisis.pdf

  97. Which Way For The 'ASEAN Way': The Myanmar Coup And ASEAN's Response - The Yale Review Of International Studies, accessed May 4, 2025, https://yris.yira.org/column/which-way-for-the-asean-way-the-myanmar-coup-and-aseans-response/

  98. Joint Civil Society Statement Opposing Myanmar Junta Representatives' Participation in the EU-ASEAN Human Rights Dialogue, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asia-ajar.org/press-release/joint-statement-opposing-myanmar-junta-representatives-participation-in-the-eu-asean-human-rights-dialogue/

  99. Joint Civil Society Statement Opposing Myanmar Junta Representatives' Participation in the EU-ASEAN Human Rights Dialogue - FIDH, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.fidh.org/en/international-advocacy/other-regional-organisations/asean/joint-civil-society-statement-opposing-myanmar-junta-representatives

  100. APHR Urges ASEAN Chair and Malaysian Prime Minister to Champion Inclusive Peace in Myanmar During Meeting with President Xi, accessed May 4, 2025, https://aseanmp.org/publications/post/aphr-urges-asean-chair-and-malaysian-prime-minister-to-champion-inclusive-peace-in-myanmar-during-meeting-with-president-xi/

  101. China's increasing influence in Myanmar's civil war, accessed May 4, 2025, https://thechinaproject.com/2023/06/14/chinas-increasing-influence-in-myanmars-civil-war/

  102. China's Peace Mandate in Myanmar - Brian Wong, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/chinas-peace-mandate-in-myanmar

  103. Update on China-Myanmar Relations • Stimson Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.stimson.org/2024/major-events-in-china-myanmar-relations/

  104. Revamping BRI in post-coup Myanmar - Observer Research Foundation, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/revamping-bri-in-myanmar-post-coup

  105. The China-Myanmar Economic Corridor and the Limits of China's ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/02/the-china-myanmar-economic-corridor-and-the-limits-of-chinas-bri-agency/

  106. Road through a broken place: The BRI in post-coup Myanmar - ResearchGate, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385275376_Road_through_a_broken_place_The_BRI_in_post-coup_Myanmar

  107. Myanmar Civil War Casts Shadow over China's CMEC Corridor - Geopolitical Monitor, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/myanmar-civil-war-casts-shadow-over-chinas-cmec-corridor/

  108. Do regime differences shape developmental engagement? How China and Japan compete in post-coup Myanmar - PRIF BLOG, accessed May 4, 2025, https://blog.prif.org/2023/12/20/do-regime-differences-shape-developmental-engagement-how-china-and-japan-compete-in-post-coup-myanmar/

  109. China's Investments in Myanmar: Analyzing the Status of Projects - Tearline.mil, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.tearline.mil/public_page/china-investments-in-myanmar

  110. The Arakan Army and China's Relationship with Ethnic Armed Organizations in Myanmar - ICS Research Blog, accessed May 4, 2025, https://icsin.org/blogs/2021/06/14/auto-draft/

  111. China and Russia in Myanmar: The interests that bind - Global Politics, accessed May 4, 2025, https://globalpolitics.in/view_cir_articles.php?url=NIAS%20Southeast%20Asia%20Monitor&recordNo=626

  112. Too Close for Comfort: Southeast Asia's Attempt to Balance with Russia Against China, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/too-close-comfort-southeast-asias-attempt-balance-russia-against-china

  113. China's Calculated Brutality and Destruction of Myanmar's Ethnic Trust - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/guest-column/chinas-calculated-brutality-and-destruction-of-myanmars-ethnic-trust.html

  114. Myanmar junta slams US aid plan - VOA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.voanews.com/a/myanmar-junta-slams-us-aid-plan/7581977.html

  115. Special Envoy's Business of Betrayal - progressive voice myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2025/03/22/julie-bishop/

  116. Myanmar Junta Chief Embarks on First China Visit Since Coup - The Diplomat, accessed May 4, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/myanmar-junta-chief-embarks-on-first-china-visit-since-coup/

  117. Wang Yi Meets with Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Myanmar Julie Bishop_Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.mfa.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbzhd/202408/t20240821_11477325.html

  118. Qin Gang Meets with Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Myanmar Noeleen Heyzer_Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America, accessed May 4, 2025, http://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgyw/202305/t20230502_11069444.htm

  119. www.iseas.edu.sg, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ISEAS_Perspective_2023_92.pdf

  120. Myanmar-Russia Relations Since the Coup: An Ever Tighter Embrace | FULCRUM, accessed May 4, 2025, https://fulcrum.sg/myanmar-russia-relations-since-the-coup-an-ever-tighter-embrace/

  121. Myanmar - Russia Partnership: Deepening Strategic Ties, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.vifindia.org/print/13436?via=Azure

  122. Russia lends Myanmar a lethal helping hand - Asia Times, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asiatimes.com/2021/07/russia-lends-myanmar-a-lethal-helping-hand/

  123. RUSSIA'S POLICY IN MYANMAR AND IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA | PeaceNexus, accessed May 4, 2025, https://peacenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/V2-Report-Russian-Policy-in-Myanmar-and-SouthEast-Asia-1.pdf

  124. Myanmar's Struggling Military Seeking Further Russia Support - Asia Media Centre, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.asiamediacentre.org.nz/myanmar-s-struggling-military-seeking-further-russia-support

  125. Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2024 - SIPRI, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/fs_2503_at_2024_0.pdf

  126. Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2023 - SIPRI, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf

  127. Arms Trade Divorce - The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.fletcherforum.org/home/11/7/2024/arms-trade-divorce

  128. How Has Putin's 'Special Military Operation' Affected Russian Arms Exports to MENA?, accessed May 4, 2025, https://therussiaprogram.org/export_mena

  129. Myanmar and Russia sign SMR cooperation agreement - World Nuclear News, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/myanmar-and-russia-sign-smr-cooperation-agreement

  130. Myanmar and Russia formalise SMR partnership - Nuclear Engineering International, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.neimagazine.com/news/myanmar-and-russia-formalise-smr-partnership/

  131. Updated Timeline: Myanmar Junta's Nuclear Ambitions - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/updated-timeline-myanmar-juntas-nuclear-ambitions.html

  132. Myanmar Regime and Russia Sign Nuclear Power Plant Memorandum - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-regime-and-russia-sign-nuclear-power-plant-memorandum.html

  133. Russia's Rosatom and Myanmar sign nuclear energy MoUs, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/russia-s-rosatom-and-myanmar-sign-nuclear-energy-m

  134. UN Security Council: Historic Censure of Myanmar Junta | Human Rights Watch, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/21/un-security-council-historic-censure-myanmar-junta

  135. Security Council Demands Immediate End to Violence in Myanmar, Urges Restraint, Release of Arbitrarily Detained Prisoners, Adopting Resolution 2669 (2022), accessed May 4, 2025, https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc15159.doc.htm

  136. Myanmar: Vote on Draft Resolution* : What's In Blue - Security Council Report, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2022/12/myanmar-vote-on-draft-resolution.php

  137. UN Security Council resolution demands end to Myanmar violence - Al Jazeera, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/22/un-security-council-resolution-demands-end-to-myanmar-violence

  138. Myanmar Diplomat Cites Keys to Passage of Security Council Resolution - VOA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.voanews.com/a/myanmar-diplomat-cites-keys-to-passage-of-security-council-resolution-/6889623.html

  139. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao's Remarks on the United Nations Security Council's Voting on the Draft Resolution of the Issue of Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, http://zw.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/fyrth/200701/t20070115_6430298.htm

  140. SECURITY COUNCIL FAILS TO ADOPT DRAFT RESOLUTION ON MYANMAR, OWING TO NEGATIVE VOTES BY CHINA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, accessed May 4, 2025, https://press.un.org/en/2007/sc8939.doc.htm

  141. As Crisis in Myanmar Worsens, Security Council Must Take Resolute Action to End Violence by Country's Military, Address Humanitarian Situation, Speakers Urge | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, accessed May 4, 2025, https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15652.doc.htm

  142. Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's meeting with Deputy Prime Minister - Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, U Than Swe - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, accessed May 4, 2025, https://mid.ru/en/press_service/vizity-ministra/2001386/

  143. Statements following Russian-Myanmar talks - President of Russia, accessed May 4, 2025, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76404

  144. Russia's Support for Myanmar Junta Deepens Repression and Threatens Regional Stability, Southeast Asian MPs said - APHR - ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, accessed May 4, 2025, https://aseanmp.org/publications/post/russias-support-for-myanmar-junta-deepens-repression-and-threatens-regional-stability-southeast-asian-mps-said/

  145. A Timeline of Russia's Relations With Myanmar Junta Since the Coup - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/specials/a-timeline-of-russias-relations-with-myanmar-junta-since-the-coup.html

  146. Myanmar: The Situation One Year Post-Coup - CSIS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/myanmar-situation-one-year-post-coup

  147. US Marks Anniversary of Myanmar Coup With New Sanctions - VOA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.voanews.com/a/us-marks-anniversary-of-myanmar-coup-with-new-sanctions/7465629.html

  148. February 5, 2021 The Honorable Antony Blinken United States Secretary of State The State Department 2201 C Street, NW Washington - Senator Edward Markey, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.markey.senate.gov/download/burma-coup-letter

  149. With Coordinated Announcement, Western Nations Ramp up Myanmar Sanctions, accessed May 4, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2021/05/with-coordinated-announcement-western-nations-ramp-up-myanmar-sanctions/

  150. - U.S. RESPONSE TO THE COUP IN BURMA, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117shrg44721/html/CHRG-117shrg44721.htm

  151. Burma Sanctions Regulations - Federal Register, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/13/2024-26127/burma-sanctions-regulations

  152. United States Targets Leaders of Burma's Military Coup Under New Executive Order | U.S. Department of the Treasury, accessed May 4, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0024

  153. Treasury Sanctions Military Cronies and Companies in Burma Three Years after Military Coup | U.S. Department of the Treasury, accessed May 4, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2067

  154. US Government Issues Supplemental Business Advisory for Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/us-government-issues-supplemental-business-advisory-for-myanmar/

  155. Cut the Cash - Special Advisory Council for Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://specialadvisorycouncil.org/cut-the-cash/

  156. Burma - United States Department of State, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/burma/

  157. Is Myanmar Still Hopeful about the NDAA Burma Act? • Stimson Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.stimson.org/2023/is-myanmar-still-hopeful-about-the-ndaa-burma-act/

  158. GAO-17-648, U.S. DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE IN BURMA: USAID and State Could Strengthen Oversight of Partners' Due Diligence Procedur, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-648.pdf

  159. 22 USC Ch. 109: BURMA UNIFIED THROUGH RIGOROUS MILITARY ACCOUNTABILITY - OLRC Home, accessed May 4, 2025, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter109&edition=prelim

  160. Joint Statement by the Quad Foreign Ministers - U.S. Mission to ASEAN, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asean.usmission.gov/joint-statement-by-the-quad-foreign-ministers/

  161. Joint Statement from Quad Leaders - U.S. Embassy & Consulates in India, accessed May 4, 2025, https://in.usembassy.gov/joint-statement-from-quad-leaders/

  162. Myanmar's sustainable democracy: EU's role amid US retreat under ..., accessed May 4, 2025, https://ceias.eu/myanmars-sustainable-democracy-eus-role-amid-us-retreat-under-trump-2-0/

  163. News - Page 79 of 2602 - DVB English, accessed May 4, 2025, https://english.dvb.no/news/page/79/

  164. Myanmar/Burma Regime - SMB - Sanctions Monitoring Board, accessed May 4, 2025, https://smb.gov.mt/eu-and-un-sanctions/myanmar-burma-regime-3/

  165. EU sanctions Myanmar military over scam operations and human rights abuses - mizzima, accessed May 4, 2025, https://eng.mizzima.com/2024/10/31/15723

  166. Myanmar (Burma) - EU Sanctions Map, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/api/v1/pdf/regime?id%5B%5D=8&include%5B%5D=lists&lang=en

  167. EU Adds Myanmar Junta Chief's Business Supremo to Sanctions List - The Irrawaddy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/eu-adds-myanmar-junta-chiefs-business-supremo-to-sanctions-list.html

  168. Press Releases | Justice For Myanmar, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.justiceformyanmar.org/press-releases

  169. EU announces more sanctions on Myanmar's junta, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.trtworld.com/europe/eu-announces-more-sanctions-on-myanmar-s-junta-62359

  170. JFM calls on Switzerland to sanction Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise, accessed May 4, 2025, https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/2025/03/07/jfm-calls-on-switzerland-to-sanction-myanma-oil-and-gas-enterprise/

  171. Statement 2/2022 - MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://mofa.nugmyanmar.org/statement-2-2022/

  172. EU boosts humanitarian aid in Bangladesh, Myanmar and for the Rohingya refugee crisis, accessed May 4, 2025, https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/eu-boosts-humanitarian-aid-bangladesh-myanmar-and-rohingya-refugee-crisis

  173. Joint Press Release: 31st EU-ASEAN Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) Meeting - EEAS, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/joint-press-release-31st-eu-asean-joint-cooperation-committee-jcc-meeting_en

  174. JOINT MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 24TH ASEAN-EU MINISTERIAL MEETING 2 FEBRUARY 2024 1. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASE, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-Joint-Ministerial-Statement-24th-ASEAN-EU-Ministerial-Meeting.pdf

  175. Joint Press Release 29th ASEAN-EU Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) Meeting Convenes Virtually, accessed May 4, 2025, https://asean.org/joint-press-release-29th-asean-eu-joint-cooperation-committee-jcc-meeting-convenes-virtually-2/

  176. National Unity Government of Myanmar - Wikipedia, accessed May 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unity_Government_of_Myanmar

  177. Reimagining EU-ASEAN Relations: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed May 4, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/07/reimagining-eu-asean-relations-challenges-and-opportunities

  178. No Limits? The China-Russia Relationship and U.S. Foreign Policy, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/report/no-limits-china-russia-relationship-and-us-foreign-policy

  179. Setting the Stage: An Overview of Chinese and Russian Interests and Influence in the Indo-Pacific - Foreign Policy Research Institute, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/01/setting-the-stage-an-overview-of-chinese-and-russian-interests-and-influence-in-the-indo-pacific/

  180. Southeast Asia and US-China Competition: Contours, Realities, and Implications for the Indo-Pacific | Wilson Center, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/southeast-asia-and-us-china-competition-contours-realities-and-implications-indo-pacific

  181. How Laos and Other ASEAN Countries Can Leverage U.S.-China Competition, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/10/how-laos-and-other-asean-countries-can-leverage-us-china-competition

  182. Under the Shadow of China-US Competition: Myanmar and Thailand's Alignment Choices | The Chinese Journal of International Politics | Oxford Academic, accessed May 4, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/cjip/article/11/1/81/4844054

  183. Rebuilding strategic autonomy: ASEAN's response to US–China strategic competition - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed May 4, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10148977/

  184. ASEAN and Geopolitical Rivalries - CIRSD, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-autumn-2017-issue-no-9/asean-and-geopolitical-rivalries