Guest contributor
James Shwe
David Scott Mathieson’s Asia Times article, “A history of high-paid Western grifters in Myanmar,” stirred intense discussion—and some discomfort—within Myanmar’s democracy movement.
While several statements in the piece seem speculative and some come across as derogatory towards certain individuals, the article offers essential lessons and warnings that Myanmar’s resistance, its diaspora, and the international community must heed.
Lessons from the past: Lobbyists and false friends
Mathieson documents how Myanmar’s military junta and its cronies have repeatedly hired expensive Western lobbyists and PR firms, funneling resources to image management instead of genuine reform.
These efforts have often been aided by international business interests wanting to protect their position in Myanmar—even employing lobbyists who masquerade as resistance supporters but ultimately provide divisive or damaging counsel.
In contrast, the National Unity Government (NUG) has a clean record: there is no evidence it has engaged paid lobbyists. Instead, its diplomatic efforts rely on sympathetic pro-bono advisors, widely seen by Myanmar citizens as selflessly committed to the cause of democracy.
While some diaspora voices bemoan slow international progress and imagine that paid professional lobbyists could help, history and experience suggest otherwise. Lobbyists may deliver headlines, but only grassroots activism rooted in authenticity and consensus can create lasting change and real international support.
The real danger: Factional, foreign-funded advocacy
A deeper threat lies in foreign-funded advocacy groups that serve only one faction within the resistance—refusing to collaborate, coordinate, or represent the full spectrum of Myanmar’s struggle. Such siloed efforts create:
- Fragmentation and competition: When advocacy resources are tied to single groups, trust erodes and rivalry emerges, making unified messaging and joint operations much harder.
- Weakened legitimacy: Targeted funding breeds perceptions that resistance is donor-driven or manipulated for outside purposes, undermining confidence among international partners as well as the Burmese people.
- Perpetuation of top-down leadership: Leaders shaped by Myanmar’s old-party culture can revert to hierarchical models, stifling grassroots dynamism, broader input, and true participatory democracy.
- Alliance fatigue: The danger is compounded when foreign actors fail to encourage cross-factional collaboration, leaving the resistance vulnerable to manipulation or marginalization by the junta.
Why grassroots advocacy is essential
Despite the many divides, Myanmar’s resistance still draws strength from local organizing and its global diaspora.
The most resilient and flexible opposition movements—People’s Defence Forces (PDFs), Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs), National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC), NUG and grassroots networks—thrive by sharing leadership, rebalancing priorities, and forging coalitions across ethnic and regional lines.
This “school of fish” resilience allows the movement to adapt, withstand repression, and mount joint operations even under most difficult conditions.
Yet, fragmentation and exclusivism—sometimes reinforced by foreign funding—undermine these achievements. Moving beyond top-down models and embracing inclusive collaboration must become both a priority and a principle for the entire resistance.
Advice to international policymakers
1. Prioritize collaboration and cross-factional unity
Insist that funding and engagement require participation from multiple resistance groups, not siloed advocacy for one faction.
2. Listen to the grassroots
Engage with Myanmar’s diaspora and local community leaders across ethnic, geographic, and generational divides—not just the most visible or well-funded advocates.
3. Require transparency and accountability
Ensure all partners disclose their funding sources, leadership structures, and collaborative efforts—building legitimacy and trust.
4. Invest in local capacity
Fund efforts that foster participatory leadership, advocacy training, and coalition-building for Myanmar’s grassroots and diaspora.
5. Champion inclusive success
Elevate models of effective cooperation, joint messaging, and peaceful alignment as the gold standard for resistance support.
A way forward for Myanmar
Mathieson’s critical lens reminds us: The path to democracy will not be bought with foreign lobbyists, nor won with externally divided advocacy.
Unity must triumph over factionalism, and the entire resistance—from armed groups to civilian leaders, diaspora networks to youth activists—must learn to connect, listen, and build together. Only then will Myanmar’s fight for freedom and federal democracy succeed.
James Shwe is a Myanmar democracy activist in the U.S. and is a member of the advocacy groups Free Myanmar and the Los Angeles Myanmar Movement. He has been trying to organize and motivate the Myanmar diaspora to advocate for democracy in Myanmar.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
