The US Treasury quietly made a significant move by removing several Myanmar-linked individuals, who are business elites associated with the military junta, from the sanctions list. This action was not accompanied by any formal explanation, raising concerns among observers familiar with US policy following Myanmar’s 2021 coup. Human rights organizations swiftly condemned the decision as “shocking” and “deeply troubling.” While at first glance, it appears that the US is relaxing sanctions on a regime responsible for widespread violence and democratic regression, the underlying reasons for this move are not primarily related to Myanmar’s internal affairs. Instead, the decision is influenced by broader geostrategic and geopolitical considerations, particularly concerning China, rare earth minerals, geographical positioning, and timing.
The removal of sanctions was not an isolated event but occurred within a specific context. Prior to this action, Myanmar’s top general, Min Aung Hlaing, sent a letter to then-US President Donald Trump, expressing admiration for Trump’s leadership and requesting sanctions relief. This strategic communication highlighted Myanmar’s desire for access to US markets and economic support, leveraging the language of deal-making that resonates with the White House’s approach. Following this exchange, the US Treasury delisted several individuals linked to the junta, including those involved in defense logistics, technology, and supply chains. Notably, some of these individuals had been sanctioned only recently, without a formal rationale provided. However, in the realm of geopolitics, such decisions are never made in isolation.
The US views Myanmar not solely through the lens of ideology but as a crucial player in terms of logistics, mineral resources, and strategic location. Situated between Bangladesh, India, China, and the Bay of Bengal, Myanmar occupies a pivotal position in the contested Indo-Pacific region. The significance lies not just in Myanmar’s inherent attributes but also in China’s activities within the country. Over time, Beijing has invested heavily in infrastructure, established commercial ties, and cultivated relationships with both the military and ethnic insurgent groups in Myanmar. This strategic engagement includes collaborations with groups controlling territories rich in rare earth minerals, essential components for various modern technologies. With China currently dominating the global rare earth supply chain, Myanmar’s unregulated mines offer an alternative source, albeit one where Chinese influence is already entrenched.
From a US perspective, this scenario poses a significant challenge, as it not only cedes control of rare earth processing but also secures China’s hold on the upstream supply chain. To mitigate this dependency, the US recognizes the need to be actively involved rather than passively observing from a distance. This involvement necessitates engaging with actors closely associated with the military, even if it contradicts traditional values or preferences.
Strategically, this approach aligns with the principles of US grand strategy, which prioritize pragmatic positioning over ideological considerations. Scholars like Hal Brands, in “American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump,” underscore the reactive and leverage-oriented nature of US foreign policy. Robert Kaplan’s “The Revenge of Geography” further elucidates why Myanmar’s geostrategic importance transcends its internal dynamics, emphasizing the critical role of chokepoints like the Bay of Bengal in strategic calculations. Within a zero-sum international system, as outlined by John Mearsheimer’s structural realism in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” engaging with adversarial actors becomes a strategic imperative, irrespective of ideological differences. Moreover, Michael Klare’s “The Race for What’s Left” underscores the centrality of resource control in shaping contemporary power dynamics, highlighting the nexus between economic interests and national security concerns.
Beyond the resource dynamics, other layers of significance emerge. The maritime domain plays a crucial role, with China’s strategic ambitions evident in its “String of Pearls” initiative, which includes Myanmar’s Kyaukpyu port as a strategic asset. For the US, preventing the consolidation of Chinese naval influence in this region is a priority, necessitating strategic maneuvers that may involve uncomfortable compromises. Additionally, regional diplomacy and power balancing among neighboring countries like Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka underscore the broader strategic implications of US engagement with Myanmar. By signaling a willingness to engage with Myanmar, the US may be conveying a message of pragmatism and offering incentives rather than punitive measures.
Looking ahead, the US’s decision to lift sanctions on military-linked figures reflects a nuanced approach aimed at maintaining strategic influence and countering China’s expanding presence in Southeast Asia. While this strategy may appear contentious and morally ambiguous, it underscores the complex interplay of strategic minerals, geopolitical positioning, and regional influence in shaping international relations. Ultimately, the US’s strategic calculus prioritizes maintaining a competitive edge in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, necessitating adaptive and sometimes uncomfortable decisions to safeguard its interests and influence in critical regions.