Burma’s natural resource economy is inextricably tied to the ongoing armed conflict within the country. Questions of who has what ownership rights over what resources and how these resources can be more equitably shared with the wider population loom large. This report focuses on Burma’s resource-rich ethnic states and territories near the borders with China and Thailand and suggests that a more robust, accountable, and equitable system for managing the country’s resource wealth can help lay down the pathways to peace.


Burma’s resource economy has long been defined by armed conflict dynamics. This is still very much the case. Burma’s state and nonstate armed actors have directly or indirectly financed their leaders and insurgent (or counterinsurgent) activities through revenue generated from the extraction, production, taxation, and trade in natural resources such as jade, timber, illicit drugs, and agricultural products.

More recently, successive governments have pushed to open the Burmese economy to broader participation, focusing in particular on procuring large-scale foreign investment. Since 2012, the Union Parliament has passed a range of laws and policies to support a revival of the nation’s resource-based economy. Complementary to these reforms, the national government and the military (Tatmadaw) have been spearheading a national peace process to end the country’s nearly seven-decade armed political conflict. But some prominent armed groups in the China borderlands have so far abstained from partaking in the peace process, in part a result of the unresolved politics behind Burma’s conflict resource economy.

Burma’s conflict resource economy dates back to its independence, when the political exclusion of certain ethnic groups led to the spread of ethno-nationalist insurgencies across the country in the 1950s. The rise of the illicit poppy economy during the Cold War transformed the nature of these conflicts. In the late 1980s, as the Cold War came to a close, some ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) signed ceasefires with the Tatmadaw. Yet these ceasefires never resulted in political dialogue or any settlements on resource governance and benefit sharing with the military-led government. Instead, the state militarized, and EAO, Tatmadaw, and paramilitary leaders looted a range of natural resources to generate revenue and gain state patronage, with counterinsurgent outcomes.

This decade has seen the advent of a national peace process and the signing of a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement with many EAOs. Despite this progress, the land and resource sectors and their reform have received minimal attention in ongoing peace dialogues. As a result, core political questions—who has use and management rights over Burma’s natural resources, and how will the revenues from their exploitation be distributed and for what purposes—remain unresolved and therefore continue to fuel armed conflict. Yet with a concerted effort backed by strong political will, Burma’s conflict resource economy can be overhauled and replaced by a more robust, accountable, and equitable system that can help lay down the pathways to peace.

About the Report

This report examines Burma’s conflict resource economy in the areas along its borders with China and Thailand, focusing on the relationships between extractive and productive resources, armed conflict, and the peace process. Data and analysis are based on the author’s previously conducted interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, and research, complemented by an extensive literature review. The report is supported by the Asia Center at USIP.

About the Authors

Kevin M. Woods is a political ecologist and human geographer who specializes in land and natural resource management and its governance reform in ethnic conflict areas. Currently an adjunct fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, he has more than fifteen years of applied research and policy work experience in Burma.

Related Publications

China’s Role in Myanmar’s Internal Conflicts

China’s Role in Myanmar’s Internal Conflicts

Friday, September 14, 2018

By: USIP China Myanmar Senior Study Group

This report is the first in the Senior Study Groups (SSGs) series that USIP is convening to examine China's influence on conflict dynamics around the world. A group of thirteen experts met from February to June 2018 to assess China’s involvement in Myanmar’s internal conflicts, particularly those in Rakhine, Kachin, and Shan states, as well as China’s impact on Myanmar’s overall peace process.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Global Policy; Peace Processes

Myanmar’s Armed Forces and the Rohingya Crisis

Myanmar’s Armed Forces and the Rohingya Crisis

Friday, August 17, 2018

By: Andrew Selth

In 2016 and 2017, in response to small attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, Myanmar’s armed forces launched “area clearance operations” against the Rohingya minority in Rakhine State—a response the U.S. government has called ethnic cleansing. This report explores the structure, training, and ethos of Myanmar’s armed forces...

Human Rights

Burma’s Balancing Act on Rakhine

Burma’s Balancing Act on Rakhine

Monday, June 11, 2018

By: Jennifer Staats ; Kay Spencer

In a reversal of past policy, Burma’s government last week signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United Nations to facilitate the repatriation of Rohingya refugees back to Burma. This unexpected move builds on the momentum established last month, when Burma hosted a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) delegation and invited the U.N. to assist in the repatriation of the Rohingya and the rehabilitation of Rakhine state.

Global Policy; Human Rights

The Current Situation in Burma

The Current Situation in Burma

Monday, June 4, 2018

After five decades of autocratic military rule, Burma (also known as Myanmar) has initiated a critical transformation to representative democracy. But various regional and national tensions threaten the already tenuous transition; the Rohingya crisis, on-going clashes between ethnic armed organizations and the military in Kachin and Shan States, disagreements between the military and elected civilian government, intercommunal and religious cleavages, and precarious security structures threaten the nation’s stability.


View All Publications