Screenshot of Dr. Sasa in conversation with CSI in 2025.
Commentary by Dr. Sasa
Since the military coup in 2021, junta forces have unjustly arrested 30,000 plus civilian and political prisoners. More than 22,700, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President U Win Myint, remain detained. The junta has also banned more than 40 political parties including the National League for Democracy (NLD), which won a landslide victory in the 2020 general election.
What happens next will not only determine the future of Myanmar’s people, but will also shape diversification of supply chains, access to critical minerals, security, stability, and prosperity across the Indo-Pacific — a region home to more than half of the world’s population.
Clear evidence: Myanmar’s people reject military rule
New, comprehensive evidence leaves no room for ambiguity. True Choice Myanmar, one of the largest independent public-opinion surveys conducted since the 2021 military coup, captures the views of 304,454 people connected to Myanmar, including 162,602 respondents living inside the country, alongside internally displaced persons, refugees, and diaspora communities.
Its findings are unequivocal: Myanmar’s people overwhelmingly reject military rule and military-organized elections.
No public mandate for military-organized elections
Across all respondent groups — those living inside Myanmar, refugees, and diaspora communities — fewer than 2–3% believe elections conducted under military control could be free, fair, or capable of producing a legitimate government.
This stands in stark contrast to public perceptions of the 2020 General Election, held under a civilian government, which 98–99% of respondents across most groups regard as legitimate and credibly conducted.
The implication is clear and unavoidable: military-organized elections lack any democratic mandate. Rather than resolving Myanmar’s crisis, they risk entrenching illegitimacy and prolonging instability.
The human cost of military rule
The military’s push to stage elections comes after five years of devastation on an extraordinary scale:
- Myanmar faces a lost generation as more than six million children have no access to education and health care
- More than five million displaced people are living in refugee and IDP camps
- Over 20 million people are facing humanitarian catastrophe
- Over 40 million have been pushed into poverty
- 110,000+ homes, including schools, hospitals, and places of worship, have been destroyed
- 7,700+ civilians have been killed
- 30,000+ people have been unjustly arrested, with 22,700+ political prisoners still detained
Among those imprisoned are Myanmar’s democratically elected leaders, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and President U Win Myint.
Against this backdrop, claims that military-led elections could restore stability, legitimacy, or national unity are neither credible nor supported by evidence.
Displaced rule out returning home under continued military control
The survey also examined whether displaced populations would consider returning home if Myanmar remained under military control. The response was nearly universal: no.
Among refugees and diaspora respondents, rejection rates exceeded 95% in most groups. Military rule is not viewed as a temporary or negotiable condition, but as a decisive barrier to safety, dignity, and return.
A civilian, federal democratic alternative unlocks return
The data, however, also reveal a powerful and hopeful alternative.
If Myanmar were to become peaceful and governed by a credible civilian, federal democratic system that guarantees safety and voluntary return:
- 94.5% of refugees say they would consider returning
- 93% of diaspora respondents express the same willingness
These findings demonstrate that displacement is conditional, not permanent. The desire to return home remains strong — but it is inseparable from legitimacy, civilian governance, and safety.
A national consensus, not a regional divide
Crucially, opposition to military rule is not confined to particular regions, ethnicities, or communities. Responses from central regions such as Yangon, Sagaing, Magway, and Mandalay closely mirror those from ethnic states, internally displaced persons, refugees, and diaspora populations.
This alignment underscores a national consensus: rejection of military rule and support for a civilian, federal democratic future span Myanmar’s entire society.
What next for the Indo-Pacific China–India corridor?
Taken together, the findings point to a clear conclusion for domestic leaders and international policymakers alike: stability in Myanmar — and along the China–India corridor — cannot be achieved by legitimizing military control. It depends on creating a credible, Myanmar-led pathway to peace and federal democracy.
Why Myanmar matters
Myanmar supplies 70-80% of China’s critical minerals (heavy rare earth elements-HREEs). At stake is not simply Myanmar’s internal political trajectory, but the integrity of one of the world’s most consequential geopolitical corridors. The choices made now will influence regional trade routes, transnational crime, forced migration, critical minerals supply chains and security of critical minerals, and the balance of influence between major powers.
Considering that the Myanmar-based cyber scams stole $3.5 billion plus from Americans in 2023 alone, and given the increase in drug and human trafficking, forced migration, supply chain disruption, the humanitarian crisis and geostrategic loss, for American taxpayers alone the cost of inaction could be upwards of $20 billion in the next five to seven years. The benefit of actions now could lead to a gain of up to $70 billion in the next five to seven years.
Why this moment matters
Myanmar has entered a new phase of its crisis. Across large parts of the country, opposition and ethnic actors now exercise de facto authority, delivering governance, education, health services, humanitarian assistance, and justice under conditions of ongoing conflict.
These structures reflect resilience and popular legitimacy. Yet progress remains constrained by fragmentation—uneven coordination across political, ethnic, and armed actors who are often reliant on informal and personality-driven arrangements.
International partners have repeatedly identified this challenge. Without a coherent, Myanmar-led framework for cooperation, external engagement risks duplication, mixed signals, and unintended harm. At the same time, externally imposed solutions or premature political settlements risk undermining domestic ownership.
Cooperation before negotiation
The proposed pathway responds directly to this gap. Its core insight is simple but hard-earned: in Myanmar’s current context, dialogue without trust entrenches division rather than resolving it.
Instead, relationship and trust must be built through cooperation:
- The initial commitment is not to a negotiated political outcome,
- it is a commitment to shared processes of cooperation.
- Cooperation begins with practical, shared needs—humanitarian access, civilian protection, health, food security, and local governance
- Through working together on concrete, mutually beneficial activities, confidence grows and relationships form
- Only then does meaningful political dialogue become possible
In this model, unity and dialogue are outcomes, not starting points.
The Myanmar Cooperation Treaty
At the centre of this approach is the Myanmar Cooperation Treaty (MCT) — a voluntary, Myanmar-led framework for practical cooperation among democratic resistance actors.
The MCT is not a constitution, peace agreement, or governing authority. Rather, it is a discipline-building framework designed to:
- Reduce fragmentation
- Strengthen collective discipline
- Enable structured management of disagreement
- Provide a single, legible reference point for responsible international engagement
Existing political and coordination bodies retain their roles and autonomy. The MCT acts as connective tissue—allowing diverse actors to work together more predictably under pressure.
The initial phase is critical and deliberately modest and risk-aware. Success is measured not by peace talks, but by practical outcomes:
- Demonstrable cooperation among key opposition actors
- A shared Statement of Intent
- Initial MCT signatories
- Functioning coordination and conflict-management mechanisms
If achieved, the result is a coherent cooperation framework through which political, humanitarian, and technical engagement can be responsibly channelled.
From coordination to capability
A subsequent phase involves:
- Consolidating cooperation and collective discipline
- Testing coordination mechanisms under pressure
- Piloting confidence-building governance and humanitarian coordination in selected areas
- Establishing a clearer interface for international engagement
Over time, this approach supports federalism in practice—bottom-up built federalism through cooperation, shared responsibility, and necessity, rather than imposed constitutional design.
A strategic choice
Myanmar’s people have spoken with clarity and consistency. The choice now lies with decision-makers—domestic and international—to align policy with evidence, legitimacy, and long-term regional stability.
The path forward is not the normalization of military rule, but the patient construction of cooperation, relationship, trust, and civilian, peaceful and prosperous federal democracy—for Myanmar, and for the future of the Indo-Pacific China–India corridor.
Dr. Sasa is founder and President of Institute of Peace and Federal Democracy (IPFD). He served as Myanmar’s Special Envoy to the United Nations and as Union Minister for International Cooperation and Spokesperson of the National Unity Government of Myanmar (NUG).
