Burma’s Ethnic Peoples Seek Independence—Their Freedom Is Not a Bargaining Chip
PowerMentor’s response to TIME’s interview with Min Aung Hlaing
The Karen, Kachin, Shan, Mon, Chin, Arakanese, Karenni, and other ethnic peoples must be able to pursue independence from the regime threatening their survival. Foreign governments have no moral authority to bargain away that future.
The Interview Must Be Read Through the Eyes of Those Under Attack
TIME’s September 23 interview presents Min Aung Hlaing seeking Western engagement and sanctions relief while defending his record. He denies atrocities against the Rohingya and connects their repatriation to relief from legal challenges. The article explores resources and competition with China as potential incentives for rapprochement.
PowerMentor reads this interview as a warning: international acceptance could advance without meaningful protection for the people subjected to military coercion. time.com
For the ethnic peoples defending their homelands, the central question is whether foreign governments will support their freedom—or make arrangements that strengthen the regime they are struggling to escape.
PowerMentor stands with their pursuit of independence and self-determination. We reject any imposed settlement that places their future under the control of Burma’s military regime.
Independence Cannot Be Replaced With an Imposed Federal Arrangement
For those seeking independence, offering a federal arrangement under the same coercive authority fails to address the fundamental demand: the freedom to govern themselves beyond that regime’s control.
No foreign government, international institution, or central political movement should assume it can negotiate away that aspiration.
A political arrangement imposed on ethnic peoples cannot become legitimate simply because outsiders call it practical. Nor does an agreement become just because it preserves borders or makes diplomatic relations easier.
The people whose families, lands, and communities are at stake must decide their political future.
PowerMentor’s advocacy must defend that choice explicitly—including independence—and resist pressure to reduce it to whatever degree of authority a central government is willing to permit.
Judge the Regime by Its Conduct
Promises made to international audiences must be measured against what happens to civilians.
In August, Reuters reported that United Nations investigators found the military had intensified aerial attacks on civilians ahead of the recent election. Investigators also documented serious abuses by various armed groups. www.reuters.com
On September 29, Reuters reported that a military airstrike in Rakhine had killed at least 50 people, according to a local aid worker and the armed group controlling the area. www.reuters.com
Diplomatic outreach cannot erase the consequences of military violence.
Before rewarding any promise of reform, foreign governments should demand independently verified protection for civilians, humanitarian access, and accountability for abuses.
A family hiding from aircraft cannot survive on diplomatic language. A displaced community needs food, medicine, shelter, and the ability to return safely to its land.
Ethnic Homelands Belong to the People Who Live There
Strategic competition with China does not give Washington—or any other capital—the right to decide the fate of ethnic homelands.
Minerals, trade routes, and infrastructure must never become payment for overlooking repression.
PowerMentor’s concern is that foreign concessions could strengthen the military’s bargaining position without changing its treatment of ethnic communities.
Every proposed investment or resource agreement should face direct questions:
Whose land is involved?
Have its people freely consented?
Who receives the revenue?
Who provides armed security?
Does the agreement strengthen the machinery used to suppress the population?
An agreement negotiated without affected communities can entrench their dispossession. Foreign access to resources is no substitute for their freedom.
Dismantle the Criminal Networks Exploiting Ethnic Territory
The fight against scam compounds and trafficking belongs alongside the defense of ethnic independence.
In May 2025, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned Saw Chit Thu, his sons, and the Karen National Army for facilitating cyber scams, human trafficking, and smuggling. Treasury described military connections and the provision of land, utilities, and security to criminal operations. home.treasury.gov
Using an ethnic name does not give any militia or leader permission to exploit that people.
Those who finance, protect, and profit from trafficking and scam operations should face investigation and accountability based on documented evidence. Removing workers from a compound is insufficient if its owners, financial networks, and armed protectors remain able to operate elsewhere.
PowerMentor’s position must remain clear: defending the Karen people means defending them against exploitation by anyone—including individuals claiming to act in their name.
What PowerMentor Calls For
Our response to the diplomatic opening described in TIME should be concrete:
Defend the pursuit of independence. Do not impose a federal settlement or presume central authority over peoples seeking to leave that authority.
Require direct ethnic representation. Decisions about homelands, borders, resources, and security must include representatives freely chosen by the affected peoples.
Protect civilians. Demand an end to attacks, independent monitoring, and consequences for violations.
Deliver assistance directly and accountably. Support vetted local relief and healthcare networks, verify delivery, and investigate diversion.
Disrupt criminal protection networks. Target the financiers, owners, armed protectors, and money-laundering systems behind scam compounds.
Protect refugees and survivors. Require voluntary, safe returns and preserve access to justice.
Their Independence Is Not Ours to Trade Away
PowerMentor stands with the Karen, Kachin, Shan, Mon, Chin, Arakanese, Karenni, and other ethnic peoples pursuing independence, security, and control over their own homelands.
That commitment requires listening to their aspirations rather than replacing them with a settlement designed for the convenience of foreign capitals.
The diplomatic opportunity explored in TIME’s interview must be judged against that standard. Any agreement that strengthens coercive control while leaving ethnic peoples exposed to violence fails them.
Their freedom belongs to them. Their homelands are not bargaining chips. Their pursuit of independence must never be traded away for access to a dictator.
