Guest contributor
James Shwe
The current U.S. approach to Myanmar reflects a broader recalibration of foreign policy priorities. Understanding this shift allows Myanmar’s diaspora and resistance movement to engage more effectively with Washington’s strategic calculus.
Rather than viewing recent policy developments as abandonment, we can identify pathways where American interests and Myanmar’s democratic aspirations naturally converge.
The Arctic factor: Understanding priority allocation
We must first address the elephant in the room: Greenland is currently a higher priority for the U.S. than Myanmar. This is not a judgment on our moral struggle, but a calculation of American homeland defense.
Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base, the U.S. military’s northernmost installation, which provides the essential early warning for ballistic missile threats against American cities. In the eyes of the Pentagon, Greenland is a shield for their own families; Myanmar is a contest for influence.
Furthermore, Greenland offers a “safe bank” for Rare Earth Elements (REEs) located within the NATO security umbrella, making it a lower-risk investment than the contested mines of Southeast Asia. Understanding this hierarchy helps us manage expectations: we are important to U.S. foreign policy, but we are not an existential requirement for their survival.
Recognizing this does not diminish our cause; it grounds us in reality. This prioritization reflects homeland defense calculations rather than a judgment on the moral legitimacy of other regional challenges. Myanmar’s strategic value operates in a different category—regional stability and great power competition—which requires different engagement modalities.
Practical engagement: The logic of multi-track diplomacy
Recent developments, including diplomatic communications and adjusted sanctions frameworks, suggest the administration is pursuing engagement channels with both sides and multiple stakeholders in Myanmar.
This approach aims to prevent any single external power from establishing monopolistic influence over Myanmar’s strategic assets, including Indian Ocean access points and mineral resources.
Such engagement does not necessarily signal endorsement of governance models but rather reflects standard hedging strategies in contested geopolitical environments. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Independence Day statement affirming support for the people of Burma demonstrates that multiple policy tracks can coexist.
Even if Washington avoids overt backing of the resistance, there can be U.S. advantages in keeping strong ties to non-junta stakeholders: it preserves leverage, keeps options open if political realities shift, and reduces the risk that any single outside power monopolizes outcomes.
For the resistance, a practical assumption is that Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs) – and resistance-held areas will remain durable enough that external actors will eventually need workable channels for humanitarian access, stabilization, and basic service delivery—without forcing formal diplomatic recognition.
The strategic value of internal cohesion
For American policymakers assessing Myanmar’s future, operational unity among non-junta actors significantly affects risk calculations. When diaspora advocacy presents fragmented narratives—ethnic-specific appeals, competing territorial claims, or sectarian priorities—it reinforces perceptions of governance risk that favor status quo arrangements.
A unified federal framework addressing all communities’ concerns presents a more compelling alternative for stability planning. Policymakers evaluating supply chain diversification, humanitarian access corridors, or counterterrorism cooperation require confidence in partners’ capacity for coordinated action. Demonstrating such capacity strengthens the case for engagement with resistance-held territories.
Congressional support: A persistent resource
The U.S. Congress continues to provide crucial institutional support for Myanmar’s democratic transition through bipartisan legislation. The progress of the No New Burma Funds Act and advancement of multiple Myanmar-related bills demonstrate sustained legislative commitment.
Congressional hearings and appropriations processes create accountability mechanisms that constrain executive branch flexibility, even when administrative priorities shift. This legislative framework represents a durable foundation that transcends electoral cycles and administrative transitions.
Transactional value propositions
Effective advocacy in the current environment requires articulating concrete value propositions aligned with stated U.S. priorities:
Supply chain security: Resistance-controlled territories contain mineral resources critical to defense manufacturing. Offering transparent, predictable access frameworks for responsible extraction serves U.S. supply chain diversification objectives while generating sustainable development for local communities.
Regional stability: EROs currently provide governance and security in border regions. Strengthening these capacities reduces refugee flows, prevents humanitarian crises, and maintains buffer zones against transnational criminal networks—all outcomes that serve regional stability interests shared by U.S., Thailand, India, and other partners.
Intelligence cooperation: Ground-level monitoring of external power projection activities provides valuable strategic intelligence. Partnerships that enhance situational awareness in contested regions serve mutual security interests without requiring major resource commitments.
The path forward: Unity as strategic competence
The most effective response to current policy dynamics is demonstrating unified strategic competence. When diaspora advocacy speaks with coordinated messaging—emphasizing inclusive federalism, transparent governance, and willingness to engage constructively with all stakeholders—it builds confidence among policymakers who must assess long-term partnership viability.
This approach serves American interests by offering a viable alternative to prolonged instability or dependency relationships that benefit adversary powers. It serves Myanmar’s interests by maintaining space for democratic development while securing the external support necessary for that development to succeed.
American policy toward Myanmar will remain primarily driven by U.S. strategic interests. This reality creates opportunities rather than obstacles when those interests are properly understood. A unified federal Myanmar capable of independent decision-making, transparent resource management, and stable governance serves American Indo-Pacific strategy far more effectively than either fragmented conflict zones or captured client states.
The question before Myanmar’s diaspora and resistance leadership is whether to present a unified vision that aligns with these strategic realities, or to continue competing narratives that inadvertently reinforce the status quo.
Congressional support remains available, diplomatic channels remain open, and the strategic case for engagement with democratic forces remains sound. The determining factor will be unity of purpose and clarity of message.
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]
