Guest contributor
James Shwe
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) tentative re-engagement with Myanmar and the junta’s expensive lobbying push in Washington are not separate developments.
They are two connected tracks of the same survival strategy, and the resistance must recognize them early and push back before diplomatic theatre hardens into political acceptance.
Myanmar’s generals are not reaching out to ASEAN and Washington because they are winning. They are doing so because they are under pressure and need a way to survive.
A junta that truly controlled the country and enjoyed public confidence would not need to spend millions on foreign lobbyists, hide behind the language of peace, or rely on tentative diplomatic openings abroad to compensate for its failures at home.
This is the point the world must not miss. ASEAN’s tentative re-engagement with Myanmar’s junta and the junta’s expensive lobbying campaign in Washington are two connected tracks of the same counter-offensive.
One seeks regional acceptance. The other seeks Western rehabilitation.
Together, they aim to persuade foreign governments that the junta is no longer untouchable, that “realism” requires engagement, and that the revolution must eventually give way to accommodation.
ASEAN foreign ministers have agreed to hold a virtual meeting with Myanmar’s junta foreign minister, the clearest signal yet that the bloc is testing a path back to engagement after five years of sidelining the junta from top-level meetings.
Thailand has been especially active in pushing this line, with its foreign minister openly calling for a step-by-step process of greater engagement and presenting Bangkok as a bridge between Myanmar and ASEAN.
Thailand and other neighbors may not be part of the junta’s formal lobbying machine in Washington, but their push for practical re-engagement creates exactly the atmosphere the junta’s paid lobbyists want to exploit.
The junta’s own words reveal how fragile its position in ASEAN still is. In a statement issued this week, Myanmar’s junta-run foreign ministry complained that “discriminatory actions” and “restrictions” by “a few” ASEAN states were preventing the “Myanmar Government” from taking its “equal” place in the bloc, even as it claimed that “positive developments” inside the country were recognized by most of its neighbors.
It accused ASEAN members of interference and “non-inclusive engagement” that supposedly ignores the “genuine will of the Myanmar people”—language that sits uneasily with the reality of airstrikes, mass displacement, and the junta’s continuing refusal to implement the Five-Point Consensus peace plan.
Every regional signal that Myanmar should be gradually welcomed back helps the generals argue that they are becoming normal interlocutors again.
Every paid message in Washington about stability, partnership, or transition makes it easier for some ASEAN governments to justify engagement as realism rather than retreat.
The two tracks reinforce each other. ASEAN provides the optics of acceptance. Washington lobbyists provide the language to rationalize it.
The most visible part of this effort in the United States is the professional lobbying apparatus. Myanmar’s junta Ministry of Information signed a $3 million USD contract with DCI Group, registered under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act, to rebuild relations with Washington and influence policy on the economy, natural resources, and humanitarian relief.
Reporting also shows that longtime Donald Trump ally Roger Stone joined the account through DCI at $50,000 USD a month, underscoring that the junta is not just buying public relations services but trying to gain access to political networks close to the current US administration.
Other firms and intermediaries have also worked to shape thinking in Congress and the State Department, showing that this is a broad effort to influence how Myanmar is framed in Washington.
This campaign is not only about access. It is about narrative control. One example is the English-language website Myanmardemocracynow.com, which presents itself as a platform for democratic renewal while promoting themes of peace, prosperity, partnership, and a supposed path toward civilian-led governance.
But power remains in the hands of the same military generals who overthrew an elected government, jailed Aung San Suu Kyi, and continues to wage war on civilians.
The site’s messaging closely follows the objectives of the junta’s lobbying effort: encourage engagement, soften resistance to normalization, and rebrand military rule in language designed to reassure foreign audiences.
Myanmardemocracynow.com should be understood for what it is: not an independent democratic voice, but a public-relations mask. Researchers and media freedom groups have repeatedly documented how Myanmar’s military and its proxies weaponize disinformation through front platforms, manipulated narratives, and the language of peace to obscure coercion and violence.
In that sense, the site is not a side story. It is the Washington-friendly face of a broader disinformation architecture that seeks to confuse policymakers, soften public opinion, and make military domination look like a manageable transition.
The junta’s latest press statement shows how this system operates in real time. Yesterday, it released a statement claiming that the situation in Myanmar is stabilizing, that its recent political moves show a return to normalcy, and that foreign critics are misrepresenting events.
State-run media and pro-military social media channels quickly amplified the statement, and its talking points mirrored familiar themes: that the authorities are restoring order, that the economy is improving, and that any remaining violence is the fault of “terrorists” and foreign interference.
A detailed fact-check dismantled those claims, drawing on independent reporting, open-source evidence, and testimonies from affected communities to show how far the junta’s version of events diverged from reality.
Instead of engaging with the evidence, the junta’s supporters moved to suppress it. Posts and accounts sharing the fact-check were mass-reported, and pressure came from pro-junta Russian networks and pages that have previously been involved in coordinated disinformation campaigns in other contexts.
The goal was to push the fact-check off people’s screens and to intimidate platforms into treating the junta’s official statement as the safer narrative.
This pattern is familiar. Russia has long used aggressive information operations, including pressure on social media companies and coordinated reporting of inconvenient content, to undermine independent fact-checking and protect state propaganda.
Similar methods are now being repurposed in support of Myanmar’s junta. The objective is not necessarily to convince everyone that the junta is telling the truth.
It is to flood the information space with doubt, to make it harder for ordinary people and foreign governments to distinguish fact from fiction, and to punish those who try to document what is really happening.
But the most important point is this: the junta is not winning. It is not even close to winning in any meaningful political sense. A government does not prove control simply by placing soldiers on roads, imposing curfews, or forcing frightened people into silence at gunpoint.
Real control means effective governance across the country. It means administering territory in a way that people accept as legitimate. It means providing security, justice, services, and a sense of normal life.
The junta has failed on every one of these counts. Large parts of Myanmar remain outside its effective control, especially in ethnic minority areas and contested regions where resistance forces and ethnic armed organizations exercise real influence on the ground.
Even where the junta can still project force, coercive occupation is not the same as stable rule. A town under curfew, fear, and arbitrary violence is not genuinely governed.
A population that is intimidated is not reconciled. Stability cannot be measured only by the absence of visible protest under repression. True stability requires public trust, a functioning social order, and the mental security and basic happiness of the people.
Myanmar is still very far from that.
A regime that issues petulant statements accusing ASEAN of “discrimination” for refusing to treat its leaders like normal heads of government is not a regime at ease with its own legitimacy.
It is a junta that knows it has failed to win either the consent of its people or the full recognition of its neighbors, and that is why it leans so heavily on both paid lobbyists abroad and propaganda at home.
This is why the language of “stability” used by the junta’s lobbyists and some regional advocates is so misleading. They treat stability as if it were simply the restoration of transactions between states, the reopening of diplomatic channels, or the management of borders, business, and crime.
But a country cannot be stable while villages are bombed, civilians are displaced, political prisoners remain behind bars, and millions of people live without any sense that their future belongs to them.
Stability that excludes the will, dignity, and emotional wellbeing of the people is not stability. It is suppression.
The same deception lies behind the rhetoric of peace. ASEAN officials and some regional governments say engagement is needed to improve humanitarian access, manage refugees, and encourage de-escalation.
But the junta has spent years ignoring the Five-Point Consensus, escalating attacks on civilians, and using diplomatic openings to buy time rather than reduce violence.
Engagement without firm conditions does not moderate such a junta. It rewards it.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s image is likely to become central to this strategy. The junta wants to use her name to suggest that it is softening, to market a false transition that leaves military power intact, and to shift blame onto resistance groups if they refuse a bad deal wrapped in the language of peace.
But the Myanmar people’s trust in Aung San Suu Kyi was earned because she stood for sacrifice, principle, and democratic legitimacy.
The junta wants her symbolism without her independence, her name without her voice, and her moral authority without the political freedom that gives that authority meaning.
There is another reason the generals are lobbying so aggressively now. Growing U.S. concern about online scam centers and transnational criminal networks threatens to place Myanmar under a wider and more dangerous policy lens.
If Washington increasingly links scam compounds, corruption, weak governance, armed protection, and regional insecurity into one framework, the junta could face a new wave of pressure that goes beyond traditional human-rights sanctions and reaches the business networks and financial channels it depends on.
This helps explain why the junta wants to present itself as a useful partner on order and stability even while criminal ecosystems have flourished under its rule.
The diaspora should understand what all this means. When expensive U.S. lobbyists, slick websites like Myanmardemocracynow.com, regional advocates of “calibrated re-engagement,” business voices calling for “responsible engagement,” and self-styled peace intermediaries all begin pointing in the same direction, that is not a sign that real peace is near.
It is a sign that the junta is trying to change the story because it cannot change the facts on the ground.
That is why this is not only a warning. It is also a challenge to the diaspora. Are you aware that ASEAN re-engagement and Washington lobbying are now reinforcing each other?
Did you also see how, after the junta’s latest press statement, independent fact-checks were attacked and pushed off social media by networks linked to its Russian partners?
That kind of censorship is a warning sign: it shows how afraid the junta is of documented truth, and how far it and its allies will go to hide it. If you are aware of these patterns, are you doing anything to push back—archiving and sharing fact-checks, reporting disinformation networks, briefing lawmakers and journalists about the junta’s use of Russian-style information warfare, and supporting platforms that refuse to bow to such pressure?
The problem is no longer whether these campaigns exist. They do. The real question is whether enough people recognize them early enough—and whether they are prepared to act before diplomatic theatre hardens into political acceptance.
If these efforts go unchallenged, they will not bring peace. They will only make it easier for the world to accept continued military power under a more polished name.
If the diaspora, democratic forces, and Myanmar’s friends abroad want to help prevent that outcome, they must expose the hired guns, challenge the propaganda, reject false equivalence between victims and perpetrators, and insist on a simple truth: no genuine peace or stability can be built on the terms of those who destroyed democracy at gunpoint.
James Shwe is a Myanmar American professional engineer and advocate for democracy in Myanmar, affiliated with the Los Angeles Myanmar Movement.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
