A realistic, strategic recalibration is required.
By
Dave Brat
FOR nearly two decades, Washington’s policy stance towards Myanmar has oscillated between moral outrage and strategic neglect. No one denies that Myanmar’s past includes human rights abuses, but the question is: How long will we let that dictate US foreign policy instead of thinking strategically about the future?
As
an economist and a former member of Congress, I have spent my career examining
economic ethics, weighing moral claims against competing interests. I believe
America’s sanctions-obsessed approach to Myanmar has only weakened our
country’s position in one of Asia’s most consequential geopolitical crossroads.
President
Trump, however, has signalled a possible shift in that policy stance. First of
all, diplomatic engagement with Myanmar is not an endorsement of the country’s
government; it is merely an investment in American Influence, regional
stability and long-term economic security. Furthermore, there is no
counterproposal that will leave the US and Myanmar better off.
Recently,
Myanmar’s multiphase national elections, monitored by international observers
and accompanied by prisoner releases, have prompted cautious openness from the
Trump administration. Mr Trump has deliberately avoided the sanctimonious
megaphone diplomacy that characterized earlier US policy, choosing instead to
preserve the possibility of dealmaking. That restraint matters, as diplomacy
requires open doors and levelheadedness.
Critics
argue that US engagement in Myanmar legitimizes a flawed political process. I
disagree. As economists understand, incentives shape outcomes. Total
disengagement through sweeping sanctions and public condemnation has not
improved governance in Myanmar. It has, however, created a power vacuum that
has been eagerly filled by America’s adversaries.
China
already operates a major oil and gas pipeline from Myanmar’s coast to Yunnan
Province, locking in strategic energy access and political influence. Russia,
eager to expand its footprint in South-East Asia, stands ready to deepen
military and economic ties wherever the United States retreats. If America is
serious about strengthening our geopolitical position, we cannot afford a
policy of absence. The status quo is not working.
There
is also a hard-headed economic case for engagement. Myanmar sits atop
significant reserves of oil, natural gas and rare earth minerals. These
resources are indispensable to modern energy systems, advanced manufacturing
and national defence. The global scramble for critical minerals is
intensifying, and dependence on single-country supply chains has proved
strategically reckless.
Investing
in energy and critical mineral opportunities in Myanmar would diversify supply
chains while giving the United States economic stakes that translate into
diplomatic influence. America’s broader Indo-Pacific strategy depends on
credible engagement with South-East Asia, including through forums such as the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Quiet diplomacy at regional summits,
confidence-building measures along borders and economic reentry all signal that
the United States intends to remain a serious player.
Many
US companies exited Myanmar after the 2021 sanctions regime was put into place
by a Biden executive order, surrendering ground to state-backed Chinese firms.
With those measures set to expire early this year unless renewed, Washington
faces a choice: either double down on a strategy that has ceded US influence or
recalibrate towards a strategic engagement that advances US interests.
The
US Treasury’s recent decision to remove certain Burmese individuals from
sanctions lists, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s positive reference
to Myanmar’s elections and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s instructions to
State Department officials to avoid prejudging electoral legitimacy overseas
all suggest that a more nuanced approach is possible.
Senator
Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, preferring the old US strategy of disengaging and
handing wins to our adversaries, has dismissed Myanmar’s elections outright.
The
United States should push for peace, humanitarian aid and political inclusion
in the countries where we are engaged diplomatically. Those goals, however, can
be achieved only from a seat at the table. The president’s playbook is very
clear in the 2025 National Security Strategy document: “Flexible Realism - US
policy will be realistic about what is possible and desirable to seek in its
dealings with other nations. We seek good relations and peaceful commercial
relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or
other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories. We
recognize and affirm that there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in
acting according to such a realistic assessment or in maintaining good
relations with countries whose governing systems and societies differ from
ours, even as we push like-minded friends to uphold our shared norms,
furthering our interests as we do so.”
Strategic
engagement with Myanmar offers the United States a chance to strengthen our
position against our adversaries, secure critical resources and promote
stability in a geopolitically crucial region of the world. Because walking away
at this crucial moment would be strategically unsound, Congress should back
President Trump on this strategic recalibration because American interests
demand it.
Dave
Brat is a PhD economist. He represented Virginia’s 7th Congressional District
from 2014 to 2019.
#TheGlobalNewLightOfMyanmar
No comments:
Post a Comment