The United States has endorsed Myanmar’s upcoming elections, breaking with much of the international community and ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nearly 4,000 Burmese nationals living in America. The decision, signed last week by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, cites “plans for free and fair elections” as evidence of improved stability in the country.

 

Critics argue such elections are impossible. Myanmar’s military junta, the Tatmadaw, seized power in 2021 and now controls only about 20 percent of the country. Rebel militias hold vast swathes of territory, while the junta has jailed more than 30,000 political prisoners and dissolved the former ruling party under restrictive new laws. Observers warn the December vote will proceed without meaningful opposition.

 

The DHS notice praised ethnic administrations for “tangible gains in governance,” but rights groups report ongoing airstrikes on schools, hospitals and villages. A recent census covered fewer than half of Myanmar’s townships, raising doubts about voter rolls.

 

Humanitarian concerns remain acute. More than 3.6 million people are displaced, and the Rohingya Muslim minority continues to face persecution, with 150,000 fleeing to Bangladesh in the past 18 months. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has condemned the junta’s repression of minorities, noting widespread displacement across Chin, Kachin and Rakhine states.

 

The junta’s record of broken ceasefires further undermines confidence. After a devastating earthquake in March, it bombed rescue crews despite agreeing to a truce. International watchdogs documented over 170 attacks in the first three weeks of the ceasefire.

 

Globally, the elections have drawn sharp criticism. ASEAN members, including Malaysia and Indonesia, have urged dialogue over premature polls, while Russia and China have pledged support, offering observers and technical assistance. Analysts warn the vote is designed to consolidate military power rather than restore democracy.

 

For Burmese nationals in the U.S., the policy shift means TPS protection will end on 26 January 2026, forcing them to leave or secure another legal status. The move underscores Washington’s controversial stance: backing a vote many see as a sham, while thousands in Myanmar continue to face violence, displacement and repression.

 

 

 

-2025-12-03

Trump loves a despot and a dictator, and has an obvious disdain for both democracy and the rule of law. So, it is natural for him to support the junta and their genocide. His moral bankruptcy knows no boundaries. He could not do the right thing if his sorry life depended upon it. 

This has less to do with Trumps love of despots like the Myanmar junta leader, and more to do with his home grown anti immigrant stance. He just wants them out of the USA and a sham election in Myanmar is a vague enough reason to send more Myanmar nationals out of the country on ICE flights. Whether its Myanmar or war torn South Sudan makes no difference to ICE. This is what the American electorate voted for. They were eating the cats and dogs. #sad.

36 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

This has less to do with Trumps love of despots like the Myanmar junta leader, and more to do with his home grown anti immigrant stance. He just wants them out of the USA and a sham election in Myanmar is a vague enough reason to send more Myanmar nationals out of the country on ICE flights. Whether its Myanmar or war torn South Sudan makes no difference to ICE. This is what the American electorate voted for. They were eating the cats and dogs. #sad.

I wonder if there are rare earth minerals available, or something similar, too?

He has a lot of medals to say there have been no wars, they can't ALL be long service medals.

Over time, I’ve found myself listening more carefully to what Donald Trump actually says. I used to be very critical of him, but I gradually realised that some media outlets – the BBC among them – often presented his remarks through selective clips or soundbites that didn’t always reflect the full context.

 

That doesn’t mean Trump is above criticism, only that media framing can strongly shape how a political figure is perceived.

 

Although I wouldn’t call Trump the best president the United States has ever had, I do think he demonstrated a level of decisiveness that I sometimes feel is missing in current UK leadership.

 

Whatever one thinks of his style, he projected a sense of firmness that many voters found appealing.

 

When it comes to immigration, I believe some of his policies were closer to what is needed to protect citizens than those of the EU or UK, which I feel have struggled with the consequences of uncontrolled or poorly managed migration. For example, during Trump’s term:

• Illegal border crossings declined in 2017, his first year, before rising again later due to several regional factors.

• His administration implemented the “Remain in Mexico” policy (formally the Migrant Protection Protocols), requiring certain asylum seekers to wait outside the U.S. while their claims were processed.

• Around 450 miles of border barrier were constructed or reinforced, mostly replacing older structures rather than creating entirely new sections.

 

People may disagree on whether these were the right approaches, but they were concrete attempts to prioritise border control, and that is something I feel UK and EU governments have not handled as effectively.

On 12/4/2025 at 9:49 AM, Watawattana said:

I wonder if there are rare earth minerals available, or something similar, too?

Yes, there are rare earths in Kachinland, currently exploited by China causing gross environmental pollution.  And Trump has already expressed interest in them (as also India).

 

Moreover Burma (Myanmar if you prefer it) is rich in many natural resources:  yellow cake [uranium], copper, rubies, gas and oil, unexploited deposits of gold, and, if still in production, the colonial-era tungsten mines at Mawchi.  Plus of course tropical hardwoods (although I guess the colonial teak forests are probably no longer managed these days but merely cut down for a quick buck).

On 12/4/2025 at 2:11 PM, Scouse123 said:

Over time, I’ve found myself listening more carefully to what Donald Trump actually says.

What he does is also of consequence.

 

Official U.S. (and NATO) posturing has long claimed to support and promote democracy and human rights while simultaneously doing the opposite.  They actually prefer dealing with dictators rather than politicians democratically elected by popular vote.  Because, as a former senior C.I.A. operative has remarked, authoritarian rulers are, in return for favours, generally  more pliable, reliable and easier to deal with.

 

This has obliged major western powers to maintain a hypocritical stance, which can sometimes benefit those struggling for the values the West claims to represent.  Because a narrative is needed that has some semblance of credibility when repetitively presented by officialdom itself and by fawning media outlets.

 

Team-Trump has thrown aside much hypocritical pretence.  Or rather replaced it with much cruder hypocrisy which deceives only the most blinkered.  E.g. claiming the right to invade a sovereign nation on grounds of suppressing narcotics trade rather than for politico-economic reasons.

 

In Trump's favour is that he perceives many acute problems facing his country (and by extension the world) which his predecessors and many of his contemporaries either fail to see or ignore.

 

He is as a-moral as most politicians, is in too much of a hurry, sees things in black-and-white, seeks to insult and humiliate others rather than find common ground, and his word is not his bond.  

 

Trump's excessive disruption may yet end up accelerating the onset of the severe economic collapse, and subsequent social breakdown, that has been building up over past decades.  We could be in for a hard landing.

 

Is he sowing obstacles in his own path?  Trump's opposite numbers play chess and study Sun Tzu.

 

 

This is supportive of contentions in my above comment: