Despite Civil War, Myanmar's Critical Mineral Exports Continue — Accountability Elusive

Myanmar has long been a significant source of tin, tungsten, and rare earth elements — minerals essential for electronics, electric vehicles, and defense technologies. But since the military coup in February 2021, the country has descended into a multi-front civil war, with the junta fighting dozens of ethnic armed organizations and pro-democracy resistance groups.

Despite the chaos, mining operations have not stopped. In some areas, production has even increased as armed groups seize control of mines to fund their operations, and as global demand for critical minerals surges amid the energy transition. The Foreign Policy report notes that the conflict has created a tangled web of control: some mines are held by the military, others by rebel groups, and still others by private companies paying protection money to both sides.

Tracing the origin of these minerals has become nearly impossible. Smugglers routinely move ore across porous borders into China and Thailand, where it is processed and re-exported. International due diligence frameworks such as the OECD’s Conflict Minerals Guidance are struggling to keep pace. The authors point out that even when companies try to source responsibly, they often rely on audit systems that can be easily falsified in a war economy.

The situation presents a dilemma for policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo. On one hand, they want to cut off revenue streams to the junta and armed groups. On the other, they are desperate to secure supplies of critical minerals to reduce dependence on China, which dominates global processing. Sanctions on Myanmar’s mining sector have been piecemeal and are frequently evaded.

Human rights groups have called for tougher enforcement, including downstream tracing requirements that would force electronics manufacturers to prove their supply chains are conflict-free. But industry representatives warn that overly strict rules could simply push buyers toward other conflict-affected regions or deepen reliance on Chinese sources.

The report concludes that without a coordinated international effort to close loopholes in the mineral trade, Myanmar’s war economy will continue to be fueled by the very materials needed for green technology and digital infrastructure.

Why This Matters

Impact on global supply chains: Myanmar supplies roughly 10% of global tin and a growing share of rare earths. Any disruption — or ethical backlash — could affect prices for electronics and clean energy components.
Human rights accountability: Continued mineral flows mean armed groups and the junta can keep fighting, prolonging a conflict that has displaced over 2 million people and triggered widespread atrocities.
Regulatory pressure: The US and EU are crafting new forced labor and conflict minerals rules. Myanmar will be a key test case for whether those rules can actually change behavior on the ground.

Background

Myanmar’s mineral wealth has long been a curse. During decades of military rule, jade, gems, and metals funded the Tatmadaw. After the 2021 coup, the junta lost control of large parts of the country, but mining areas remain some of the most contested. The Wa self-administered zone and parts of Kachin State host rare earth mines that are effectively independent of central authority. Tin and tungsten come primarily from Dawei and Mawchi, where both the military and the Karen National Union levy taxes.

International efforts to regulate conflict minerals date back to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act’s Section 1502 concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo. Similar frameworks for Myanmar have been slower to develop. The OECD published specific due diligence guidance for Myanmar’s tin sector in 2020, but implementation has been weak. Meanwhile, global demand for these minerals has only grown.

Key Perspectives

Junta and armed groups: Both sides benefit from the mineral trade. The military relies on it to finance arms purchases. Ethnic armed organizations see mining as a legitimate source of revenue for governance and self-defense. Neither has an incentive to cooperate with international transparency efforts. International buyers and downstream companies: Many electronics and auto manufacturers have pledged ethical sourcing, but they struggle to verify supply chains that pass through multiple intermediaries. Cost pressures and the scarcity of alternative suppliers further incentivize looking the other way. Human rights and anti-corruption advocates: They argue that voluntary standards are insufficient. Tougher legislation, such as the EU’s proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, must include mandatory tracing and penalties for non-compliance. They also warn that simply labeling Myanmar minerals as ‘conflict’ could stigmatize entire communities dependent on mining.

What to Watch

The US State Department’s next annual report on trafficking in persons — Myanmar’s mineral sector has been flagged repeatedly, and any downgrade could trigger new sanctions.
Progress of the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which will establish benchmarks for responsible sourcing from conflict-affected areas.
Whether China, the primary destination for Myanmar’s ores, will cooperate with traceability efforts or continue to provide a market for conflict-laced minerals.
Any shift in control of major mines, especially as fighting intensifies around Dawei and Mawchi.

ZOTPAPER