This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0 This Comment reflects the author’s views. The online version of this publication contains functioning links to other SWP texts and other relevant sources. SWP Comments are subject to internal peer review, factchecking and copy-editing. For further information on our quality control procedures, please visit the SWP website: https://www.swpberlin.org/en/about-swp/ quality-management-forswp-publications/ SWP Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Ludwigkirchplatz 3–4 10719 Berlin Telephone +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org swp@swp-berlin.org ISSN (Print) 1861-1761 ISSN (Online) 2747-5107 DOI: 10.18449/2026C09 (English version of SWP-Aktuell 5/2026) the KIO that would facilitate such cooperation. Furthermore, the mining of rare earths is both environmentally damaging and dangerous – especially in a civil war zone. Therefore, it is unlikely that European companies would take the associated risks, which include potential damage to their image. And even if they were to do so and, at the same time, dismiss legal frameworks such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), such a project would be constrained by the export corridors for rare earths from Myanmar. That is because these routes run either northward across the border to China or southward through areas controlled partly by EAOs and partly by the junta. In the geopolitical struggle for influence in Myanmar, Berlin and Brussels will continue to play no role even in the wake of the recent elections. But in the area of humanitarian aid, Germany (like other EU member states) should continue to at least uphold its commitments, not only because of the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Myanmar but also because the US has cut its aid. To this end, it is important that Germany and Europe cooperate with the UN wherever possible, not least with a view to countering the delegitimisation of multilateral international institutions. Furthermore, the established relations with the democratic opposition both in Myanmar itself and in exile should continue to be preserved. At the international level, Berlin and Brussels should carry on exerting diplomatic pressure on the government of Myanmar. At the very least, Europeans must insist – potentially together with the UN, ASEAN (and the Philippines, which currently holds the ASEAN chairmanship) and Myanmar’s neighbouring countries – on a sustainable improvement in the humanitarian situation in Myanmar, a nationwide ceasefire and talks being held between the government and the opposition. In addition to the actors in Myanmar itself, the neighbouring countries of China, India and Thailand, in particular, have an important role to play in managing the country’s ongoing “polycrisis”. The reality in Myanmar is that the military, some members of which now appear in civilian garb, is likely to remain in power for the foreseeable future. Any easing of EU sanctions and intensification of cooperative relations with the new “civilian” government below the threshold of diplomatic recognition should be linked to corresponding progress – for example, towards significantly improving in the humanitarian situation and holding ceasefire negotiations. Dr Felix Heiduk is Head of SWP’s Asia Research Division. The author would like to thank Simona Beckemeier for her research support. SWP Comment 9 February 2026 6