Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Burma

Burma

Book Review: ‘The Hidden History of Burma’

by

by Anna Tan

 

Thant Myint-U. The Hidden History of Burma: Race, Capitalism and the Crisis of Democracy in the 21st Century. Atlantic Books, London, 2019. ISBN 978-1-78649-790-1. Pp. xi, 288. Paperback. £10.78

 

The case for peace in Myanmar (Burma) has been a tiring and relentless one. The biggest myth of all is that Burma was set to have a bright future during the dawn of its independence from the British Empire. Thant Myint-U in his latest work “The Hidden History of Burma” (2020) reminds us that the reality is far more complex. The colonial legacy of the state’s institutions and its impact on the plethora of ethnic groups across Burma’s periphery would continue to haunt its present-day problems. Most notably among these are the Rohingya crisis and Burma’s half-century struggle for democracy. The colonial era’s martial race policy stands at the forefront of these problems. Despite the great academic legacy left behind by the colonial era, Thant argues, the state was considerably weak at the time when General Aung San founded the nation. This meant that whatever great that was embedded within Burma was either purged or became stale during years of poverty. Moreover, Ne Win’s failed anti-imperialist revolution – or the pursuit of the ‘Burmese Way to Socialism’ – would further exacerbate this situation.

Towards the end of the 20th century, the socialist layer of the nation-state’s operational ideology gradually peeled away; leading to some form of a free-market system and one that according to Thant can best be described as ‘crony capitalism’. Yet, strikingly, Burma’s political reforms of the early 2010s had originally envisioned an alternative future. Here, the implementation of neoliberal policies and a non-state intervening would complete the country’s transition to a free-market system, to follow the steps of congested and inequality-ridden cities we so very often see across South East Asia today. In this regard, those easily combustible issues surrounding race and inequality are left out. The state itself does not even seem to be cognizant of it. Neither is any consideration given to the idea that one’s ethnicity can be fluid. As a result, state formation and attempted conflict resolution is stuck in a vicious cycle of bureaucracy, electoral politics, and red-tape; further fuelled by a strange concoction of neoconservatism and a fixed primordial perception regarding race and ethnicity amongst parties and actors across the political spectrum.

The blame for the sustained civil strife across various parts of the country is shared among all parties, both at home and abroad. It is Thant’s insider narrative in the book that made me realise how it is bizarre that China’s ambitions for Burma re-emerged. Initially thwarted by the reformist government of Thein Sein, those intentions came back centre stage after the conflict in Rakhine escalated to the point of genocide. Unfortunate decisions made by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) during peacebuilding efforts that followed their victory in the 2015 elections inflamed this situation, particularly after the Myanmar Peace Centre – consisting mostly of Thein Sein staffers – was dismissed. However, this jarring moment in history is to this day a wasted opportunity that not many in the country paid much attention to. Indeed, the urban population were very much distracted by the economic promises of the new NLD government. With more shopping centres and shinier airports in the making, less visa restrictions, and an increase in free travel, it seems that it is the bourgeoisie that gets to enjoy better, more instant luxuries. I can speak from experience that testimonials by the (upper-)middle-class of Burmese society certainly reflect this sentiment. A justifying bulwark against any criticism towards the NLD government, these promises led to ample opportunity for the resolution of civil strife in the country getting squandered; thereby further darkening a future that looks more bleak than ever.

Internationally, the foreign policy of Western governments in addressing Burma’s human rights abuses provides no room for complexity and mixed bureaucratic responses by organisations such as the United Nations over the past decade have led to drastic consequences in the peace processes throughout Burma. Their involvements with the country’s democratisation efforts and entrance into the global economy were exclusively pivoted around Aung San Suu Kyi. This narrative of the ‘lady against the generals’ paid very little attention paid to the influence of ludicrous cross-border conflicts, war economies, and the incentives of various factions – be it within the state or of the rebel groups. The former president’s sudden and wide embrace of the West was short-sighted to the extent that it made light of the impact that the participation of Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) along the Sino-Burmese border could have. Suu Kyi’s government furthermore underestimated the repercussions of Western isolation on the peace deals made during the ‘21st Century PangLong Conferences’. Above all else, the young population especially, and sadly, do not seem to be able to tell the difference between the story of Burma: is it one of Suu Kyi or one of inclusivity.

Though merely stating facts, Thant’s description of the contemporary political processes in Burma is at times specked with instances that were darkly astonishing, oftentimes unintentionally comical. One of these moments includes the time when John Yettaw handed Suu Kyi the Book of Mormon, making it all the more surreal. Nevertheless, there are parts where Thant could have elaborated further, such as the impact of U Nu’s policies on the racial and social integrity of a briefly democratic Burma prior to Ne Win’s coup in 1962. However, the country’s complex web of layers stands masterfully explained in the book.

Lost is the potential of this beautiful country, so rich in natural resources, in which a deeply troubled rural citizenry resides which knows war not as an exception but as the norm. 

Most importantly, Thant demonstrates that the story of Burma’s fight for democracy is not so much as black-and-white, not a clear David-and-Goliath spectacle that we are made to believe most of the time. A particularly challenging part recounts the solemn story of a certain lady named Moe. Driven into destitution by the cascade of events following the Bush-era sanctions that shut down garment factories, her life led from unemployment to sex trafficking, only to discover herself with a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS after a hazardous, painful journey back home. These same sanctions were supported by several pro-democracy and human rights activists at home and abroad. These activists were also part of the same force that blocked the Global Fund’s humanitarian aid that was supposed to relieve HIV/AIDS and malaria outbreaks in Burma of the early 2000s, thereby cutting off all remaining hope for people like Moe. Indeed, Moe’s life is not an uncommon one for the precariat of Burma, whose rights, needs, and welfare seem to be left out of the picture entirely. While the nation emphasises the virtue of personal sacrifice for the greater good pivoted around the leader; the vast majority have little more to give. Lost is the potential of this beautiful country, so rich in natural resources, in which a deeply troubled rural citizenry resides which knows war not as an exception but as the norm. Not a glimmer of hope seems to remain in a country where Burmese identity is defined by race and ethnicity.

That is not to say that are no memorable and beautiful moments. During the peak of the Rakhine crisis in 2016, the compassion of a Buddhist monk in Rakhine that offered refuge and food to displaced civilians of the Buddhist and Muslim creed and traumatised by the violence raging outside will give any reader a chilling feeling of awe as the pages turn. The man was confronted by protesters outside his monastery for housing Muslims together with Buddhists, arguing that the protestors would have to go through him if they wish to ransack the monastery and commit violence inside. An anomaly of a preacher who truly practices a rare act of compassion could perhaps make one faintly wonder just ‘what if?’.

What kind of a future Burma will head towards we still do not know. But as Thant puts, it is truly hard to be optimistic at present. Yet understanding Burma is imperative still, in a way, as the story should provide us to rethink how Western democracies interact with authoritarian and transitory regimes in the future. It should also provide a brutal lesson for us, when aiding and advocating for democracy in contested states, to jettison the idea that one-dimensional foreign policies that prescribe a dose of sanctions followed by the introduction neoliberalism will do the trick of healing an infinitely complex, deeply conflict-ridden nation towards peace and prosperity.

This piece was originally published on the author’s personal blog, which you can find here

Anna Tan is a postgraduate student for MSc Global Affairs at King’s College London. Her research is focused on how Western human rights diplomacy affects democracy and authoritarianism in the Asia Pacific. She has previously worked for UNDP Myanmar and the American Red Cross, and is a member of the Programme Committee of the Conflict, Security and Development (CSD) Conference 2020 hosted by the Department of War Studies and the Department of International Development (DID). Anna holds a BSc in Neuroscience. You can follow her on Twitter: @AnnaTanGTW

Genocide and its Relevance Today (Part V) – Just Words? The Failure of the ‘Never Again’ Convention

by

by Anna Plunkett

A group of Rohingya refugees, crossing the border into Bangladesh (Image credit: Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters)

In 1994, some fifty years after the Holocaust ended, the Rwandan Genocide rocked the world; forcing us to re-evaluate the international community’s role in addressing crimes against humanity. Yet in 2017 it became clear that the call for such atrocities to happen ‘Never Again’ was more a sentiment than a commitment to the world’s most oppressed. As the world watched Rohingya villages pillaged and burned, the violence forced over half a million persons to flee. The UN failed to act, respond, or protect those in Myanmar’s Western State.

The Crisis

It was in August 2017 that the ongoing plight of the Rohingya people erupted onto international consciousness as over half a million people fled their homes and villages in Myanmar across the border to Bangladesh. In the weeks and months that followed, first-hand accounts, mobile footage, and aerial imagery provided evidence of the extent of the devastating violence and destruction, including widespread rape and torture, mass killings, and the razing of villages. These actions, conducted by the military, were condoned as part of a ‘land clearance’ operation said to be focused on the neutralisation of ethnic armed rebels operating in the area.

Whilst shocking, the warning signs of the possibility of such atrocities were there. Despite the country’s rich diversity, the Rohingya have struggled to gain legal recognition within Myanmar. The Citizenship Law of 1982 removed the nominal legal status they had held since independence within the country. Although they were eventually granted white cards, which provided them nominal rights, it also identified them as having a migrant rather than citizenship status. Moreover, these cards were revoked before the 2015 election leaving most of the community with no access to their right to vote and with no Muslim candidates being fielded for the election. Further laws restricted the Rohingya’s access to education, healthcare, or work, as well as leaving them without any right to marry and have children. If this was not enough, in 2015 the migrant boat crisis in Asia was only a warning sign of what, for the Rohingya people, was to come just a few years later in 2017.

The Response

Despite the warning signs of oppression, the international recognition of the difficulties the Rohingya faced came too little and too late. In the immediate wake of the crisis, the UN and other international organisations were left paralysed after Myanmar refused to grant access to the affected region or officially acknowledge the events unfolding there. Despite international outcry and pressure being placed on the newly elected government, the violence continued unabated. On the international level, a lack of consensus within the UN Security Council left its international mechanisms unable to respond effectively to the ongoing crisis.

The UN response was further limited in-country by internal struggles. The UN Special Rapporteur Yanghee Lee, who can no longer enter the country, has struggled to lead and complete effective monitoring on Myanmar’s human rights situation due to ongoing barred access to affected communities. Moreover, in 2017 the Resident Coordinator of the UN Country Team in Myanmar was rotated out after the state government raised complaints with regards to suspected bias. Although a UN Special Envoy has since been deployed and the Security Council delegation visit to Myanmar conducted in May 2018 went ahead, access is still limited with most negotiations held in the capital Naypyidaw, far away from the realities of Rakhine.

Where are we now

It took almost a year for the reality of the Rohingya situation to be officially recognised. The UN report summarising the fact-finding missions finally identified what many in the human rights community had been labelling it for over a year, accusing the Myanmar military of the Rohingya genocide.  This is a claim the Myanmar government continues to refute.

Investigations continue, and in November 2019, The Gambia filed a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice on the crimes of genocide against Myanmar. The case was heard in The Hague the following month with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi representing and defending Myanmar against the lawsuit. This event, controversially, presented a disturbing portrait of the Nobel Peace Prize Winner and previously world-renowned human rights activist. The final verdict may take months or years to be read.

Whilst there has been limited success in reaching a sustainable solution to the ongoing plight of the Rohingya, over the last year there has been increasing movement towards some cooperation. In October 2018, Myanmar and Bangladesh agreed on a repatriation programme for the refugees. Yet few Rohingya have shown willingness or even interest in returning, with no guarantee of access to citizenship or protection from the military should they do so.  Further, the continued refusal of the government to identify the group as Rohingya, or to accept as valid accusations of crimes against humanity or genocide, highlights an unwillingness to compromise or cooperate with either the affected people or the international community to resolve this deadlock.

A reflection on the utility of the Genocide Convention

An independent report into the UN’s handling of the Rohingya Crisis has identified ‘systematic and structural failures’ to protect the Rohingya people. We are not merely witnessing an unfolding tragedy in the mountains between Myanmar and Bangladesh, even one on a scale we never thought possible again. More significantly, this episode demonstrates the difficulties and failures of the UN to protect the world’s oppressed populations.

These failures highlight one of the most structural obstacles facing the UN – the willingness of its member states to cooperate. Myanmar is a member of the UN and despite not signing the Rome Statute, is still a signatory on the 1948 Genocide Convention. Their engagement and acceptance of international law is intermittent and limits the ability of the international community to cooperate and engage in Myanmar. Demonstrably, the presence and acceptance of UN policies to protect minority communities from state oppression, namely the Genocide Convention and Responsibility to Protect, have proven inconsequential. In the face of ‘Never Again,’ we have indeed stood by and observed such crimes occur. The effectiveness of UN’s policy, for all its good intentions, is dependent on the support and acquiescence of the host state and where this is not provided, neither is the protection of the world’s most vulnerable.

Anna is a doctoral researcher at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. She received her BA in Politics and Economics from the University of York, before receiving a scholarship to continue her studies at York with an MA in Post-War Recovery. She was the recipient of the Guido Galli Award for her MA dissertation. Her primary interests include conflict and democracy at the sub-national level, understanding how various political orders are impacted by transitions at the sub-national level.

Conflict, Competition and Legitimacy: Holding on to the Memory of Aung San

by

by Anna Plunkett

A defaced statue of Aung San in Myitikyna (Photo credit: The Irrawaddy)

 

General Aung San is venerated throughout Burma as the father of the nation. He is remembered as a strong leader and switched on politician, remembered as a man of honour and loyalty that has awarded him the local title of Bogyoke. He was the leader of the Thirty Comrades movement and was set to become the much-loved leader of Myanmar’s first independent government and as such has been memorialised throughout Myanmar with statues, buildings and roads among the most common commemorations. Perhaps the most famous use of his name sits with his own daughter who conflated their names as she is known today – Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. He is a man of great importance in modern day Myanmar, his status only growing since his daughter took up the mantel as state counsellor after the 2015 election. Yet, the growing endorsement of Aung San has proved controversial with students and locals in Karenni state being arrested for their opposition to the erection of a General Aung San statue in the state capital’s local park. This article will analyse the reasoning behind the growing popularity of the General’s iconic image and why such increases in popularity lack uniformity throughout Myanmar.

Legitimacy behind the General’s Image

General Aung San’s image can be found throughout Myanmar and there is no doubt it demands a great level of respect. He is remembered as the father of the nation, the leader of the Thirty Comrades, a Japanese-trained liberation army that fought the allied forces during World War Two. He transcended his military might to show his political prowess as a statesman, leading the Burmese forces to switch allegiance from the Japanese and strike deals with the allied forces toward the end of the war.[1] Then negotiating with British colonial forces to bring Burma its independence soon after the war in 1947. During this time, he also married a nurse, Ma Khin Kyi who would later become one of the country’s first diplomats and had three children. Yet, in the post-war period the Burmese nationalists began to factionalise and on 19 July 1947, he was assassinated during a committee meeting in Central Rangoon. It is suspected to have been an act by his political rivals within the nationalist movement. His death shocked and saddened the new nation, which -now leaderless- suffered from a power vacuum that left the central government scrabbling for control over Myanmar’s expansive territories. It would take General Ne Win’s military coup in 1962 and the famous ‘four cuts’ counter-insurgency strategy to restore the central government’s control over the majority of the country.

For his leadership role as a military general and as a politician General Aung San has historically been dubbed the father of the Burmese nation. He has also been titled as the father of the army. Though the relationship between the two has been turbulent over the successive military governments in Myanmar, he was a great source of legitimacy throughout the Ne Win period (1962-1988) as Ne Win himself was a member of the Thirty Comrades led by Aung San. This close relationship to General Aung San provided Ne Win with personal legitimacy as ruler and caretaker of both the military and the Burmese state. As such, during this period the imagery and promotion of General Aung San was profligate. Yet the bond between the father of the nation and his armed forces, which controlled the state lost favour after the 8888 uprising when his daughter rose to popularity on the back of the pro-democracy movement.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her Father’s Image

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar to care for her dying mother in 1988. Having studied at Oxford, she had married an academic there and settled down in her university town with their two children. Her father died when Suu Kyi was only two years old, she found herself witness to a growing uprising against Myanmar’s autocratic state. Approached by leaders of the movement Aung San Suu Kyi joined and lead the pro-democracy activists, appealing for non-violent and peaceful protest against the state. Support for the pro-democracy movement and the soon to be founded National League of Democracy blossomed under her leadership. Much like her military opponents in government she claimed her right to speak and lead the people of Myanmar through her relationship to her father, giving her first speech to the masses in-front of a poster of the General. She reclaimed the icon of the father of the nation for the opposition, using it to build her own support and support for the NLD. The importance of familial connections and networks in Myanmar can be evidenced through the success of this manoeuvre. After the brutal repression of the 8888 uprising which ended with widespread bloodshed in the capital, images of both ‘the lady’ and Aung San plummeted in popularity with the former being officially being banned under the  new military government[2].

An Aung San Statue in Bogyoke Park Taunggyi (Photo credit: author)

Since 2015 the military and the National League for Democracy have become uncooperative partners in the halls of government in Myanmar. Daw Suu’s party have taken over the parliamentary houses with landslide victories in both, yet the military’s grip on power remains. Their twenty-five per cent seat allocation in those same houses and control of central department have solidified their role as overseers of Myanmar’s political arenas[3]. It is therefore, perhaps surprising to see the increasing propagation of an image over which these two political forces have competed over in the past. General Aung San and his memory have become something of a myth tied to the legitimacy of the political forces within Myanmar’s political arena. His period of dis-favour is over, with the seventieth anniversary of Martyrs Day receiving special commemoration in Yangon in 2017. He is both the father of the army and nation and the father of the democracy movement (or at least its leader) and now this image of fatherly support is not in competition but rather represents the rightness of such cooperation between the two sides. As these two competing political forces, the military and the NLD attempt to navigate the spaces of co-existence they have found a common ground, or at least common imagery for legitimacy within General Aung San.

Aung San’s Image: Divisive Locally

Whilst the institutional support and favour has returned to General Aung San and his sacrifices to the establishment of the Burmese State, support at the local level has not followed. With the centenary of the Bogyoke’s birth in 2015 and the seventieth anniversary of his death in 2017 the unveiling of a new set of statues may not be that surprising, particularly given the changing political arena.  Nevertheless, such celebrations have been far from uniform. Protests in Karenni and Mon against the dedication and commemoration of new statues and bridges respectively have highlighted underlying tensions within Myanmar’s memory of the Bogyoke. Despite rising tensions the erection of such statues has continued including the unveiling of the largest General Aung San Statue in Mandalay in June 2017 prior to the July commemoration.

For whilst the memory and iconic image of General Aung San may legitimise the current governmental institutional establishment it has left many minority groups dissatisfied. General Aung San may have been the father of the nation that delivered Myanmar its independence, however many minorities felt betrayed by the independence negotiations which left them without a right to an independent state or secession. The infamous Panglong Agreement the General Aung San brokered with the ethnic minorities in 1947 provided some vague commitments to equality with few specifics on minority rights or protections.

The failure of the successive governments to protect minorities or recognise their independence from the state has left most with a sense of betrayal in relation to the father of the nation. The image and icon which is now appearing in their capitals, on their road signs, in relation to the infrastructure projects being developed throughout the borderlands. Rather then promoting the cooperation between the two major political forces within Myanmar, Aung San imagery is becoming the face of an encroaching hostile state within minority regions. Rather then unifying or celebrating the diversity of Myanmar through the promotion of a diverse set of icons the focus on the first nationalist leader is being perceived as at best centrist arrogance and at worst forced domination by the ethnic majority.

Conclusion

The manipulation of such imagery and historic icons within any state’s history is an important part of building a state narrative and sense of homeland. It is a history and discourse that will always be built by the victor of the struggle. Yet if Myanmar’s wishes to increase the inclusion of its ethnic minorities rather then lengthen the already extensive civil war in Myanmar they may do well to tread lightly with the establishment of such a uniform and state centric narrative in its borderlands. Myanmar is an ethnically and politically diverse state, it is also a community waiting for change and development away from the historical state domination. The commemoration of those from outside of the government-military institution even just within these localities could be an effective tool to build cooperation and goodwill over the hostility that is being entrenched through the dominance of majority narratives in minority and historically weak state regions.

Anna is a doctoral researcher in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. She received her BA in Politics and Economics from the University of York, before receiving a scholarship to continue her studies at York with an MA in Post-War Recovery. She was the recipient of the Guido Galli Award for her MA dissertation. Her primary interests include conflict and democracy at the sub-national level, understanding how minor conflicts impact democratic realisation within quasi-post conflict states. Her main area of focus is Burma’s ethnic borderlands and ongoing conflicts within the region. She has previously worked as a human rights researcher focusing on military impunity in Burma and has conducted work on evaluating Bosnia’s post-war recovery twenty years after the Dayton Peace Accords. You can follow her on Twitter @AnnaBPlunkett.

[1] See Seekins(2000) for an in-depth analysis of the special Burman-Sino relationship and the role of Aung San as a political and military leader.

[2] Testimony from authors in field interviews with activists from the 8888 student protests

[3] For further analysis on the role of the military in Myanmar’s parliament see Than (2018)

The Burmese Civil War: Seventy Years and Counting

by

By Ed Nash

20 May 2019

Kachin militiaman watching Burma Army outposts for activity. Kachin State, 2018. (Ed Nash)

The world’s current longest running war, the internal conflict in Burma (also known as Myanmar) receives but limited attention in the outside world. Considering the complexities of the conflict, as well as the growing importance of neighbouring countries and an increasingly assertive China, it may be useful for any watcher of international affairs to develop an understanding of the current events in Burma. This article aims to provide a basic grounding of the situation to those who may be interested in a conflict that has killed an estimated 130,000 people.

Since 1948 the Burmese Civil War has carried on largely unabated and today finds itself on the verge of escalating violently, as groups negotiating as part of the National Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) become further disillusioned. Despite seventy years of bloodshed under an oppressive military dictatorship, the year 2015 signalled a break-through for democracy, as the famous prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD party rose to power. The NCA negotiations began promisingly, however the last few years have seen growing discontent from several Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) stemming both from the lack of progress in talks with the central government and the actions undertaken against them by the powerful Burmese military, the Tatmadaw

Since January 2019, the Arakan Army (AA) has been battling against the Burmese Army in Rakhine State, situated on the western coast of Burma. The AA, formed in 2009, have been employing both conventional and guerrilla tactics against the army and police units and experienced a surge in support with around 7000 volunteering to fight. Although months of fighting have led to an estimated 33,000 civilians displaced, the AA appear committed to resistance. On 17 April 2019, their leader Tun Myat Naing, speaking at a military parade in Wa State, said: “We are not the ones to give up. We have to fight the war. We will not get peace by praying.”

Meanwhile, in Kachin and Shan States, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) continues to fight a guerrilla war in the mountains and dominate large sections across the Burma-China borderline. The Burmese Army have deployed their Light Infantry Division 99 (LID99) into the region, a unit notorious for brutality and its role in the Rohingya genocide of 2017 that saw over 10,000 civilians murdered and another 700,000 displaced into neighbouring Bangladesh.

Additionally, two of the AA’s allies in the east, the MNDAA and the TNLA have both issued threats that they “have to take necessary action” in support of their alliance. The last time there was extensive combat between the Tatmadaw and the MNDAA, an errant Burma Air Force bomb killed four Chinese citizens, provoking an angry response from Chinese officials. Therefore, there is no doubt that a flare-up in that sector will draw the watchful attention of China’s People’s Liberation Army, which is speculated to be informally assisting the MDNAA.[1]

Further south-east of Burma, in Kayin State, the Karen are also experiencing a series of attacks. Despite guarantees given during NCA negotiations between the Burmese government and the Karen National Union (KNU), the KNU have accused the Burmese Army of breaking faith by building roads in areas under Karen control. Also, there are reports of Kayin civilians being murdered by Burma Army personnel. To add to the growing internal conflict, the United Wa State Army (UWSA) – considered to be the strongest of ethnic minorities within Burma – have just celebrated their thirtieth anniversary with a deliberate display of their military might and statements that mark a more belligerent tone than usual.

An estimated 25,000 soldiers at their disposal, the Wa have generally been circumspect of antagonising the central government since they signed a truce in 1989. But on 17 April, a spokesman stated that he was doubtful the agreements would remain in effect after the general elections of 2020. Such a development would represent a substantial change in the Wa’s situation as “flexibility and compromise have long been crucial to the UWSA”[2] but a collapse  of their current accord with the Tatmadaw could well mean the Wa becoming aggressive to protect the considerable business empire they have created, especially if other ethnic forces are also fully engaged.

With the NLD government appearing increasingly autocratic or powerless to rein in the military, it’s likely the next few years may see a return to the widespread warfare of the kind that blighted Burma in the past, as the EAOs abandon any hopes for peace through talks. If the Tatmadaw continues to push its presence into ethnic areas in defiance to the residents wishes, they will see no other recourse but to fight. Such an event would likely spell a complete disaster for any hopes of a lasting peace for another generation.

Ed Nash has spent years travelling around the world and, on occasion, interfering as he sees fit. Between June 2015 and July 2016 he volunteered with the Kurdish YPG in its battle against ISIS in Syria. His book Desert Sniper: How One Ordinary Brit Went to War Against ISIS was published in September 2018. 

[1] Beehner, Lionel; “State-building, Military Modernization and Cross-border Ethnic Violence in Myanmar”, Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, Volume: 5 issue: 1 (January 30, 2018); p.24

[2] Ong, Andrew, “Producing Intransigence: (Mis) Understanding the United Wa State Army in Myanmar.” Contemporary Southeast Asia vol. 40, no. 3 (2018); p. 462

A Glimmer of Hope for Burma’s Peace Process?

by

By Anna Plunkett

As two new parties sign Burma’s National Ceasefire Agreement, are we witnessing a new stage in Burma’s peace process? (Credit Image: Xinhua/U Aung)

 

On February 13, 2018, the number of signatories on Burma’s National Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) grew from eight to ten with the New Mon State Party (NMSP) and the Lahu Democratic Union (LDU) officially joining at a ceremony held in the state capital Naypyidaw. Peace and reconciliation have been the primary focuses of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) since its landslide victory in the 2015 election. The cornerstone policy has been the NCA, which was established under President Thein Sein’s government and aims to negotiate between the government and the numerous Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) throughout Burma. Despite multiple peace conferences since 2015, the addition of two new signatories to the NCA in February has been the first tangible development in Burma’s peace process under the new NLD-led government. So, is this development the breath of life the beleaguered peace agreement has needed – or has it simply masked the larger problems within Burma’s peace process?

Either way, it has brought a glimmer of hope to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s peace and reconciliation aspirations that have not only been her primary objective since 2015 but a lifelong cause. Best known for her years under house arrest, Daw Suu is internationally recognised as a symbol of non-violent struggle against oppression. However, since taking office in early 2016 she and the NLD have struggled to make any progress on this central objective despite inclusive peace conferences with a variety of armed actors. Thus, the signing of two new armed groups to the NCA is the first substantial and official development within a highly-coveted peace process.

The NCA itself was developed under the leadership of President Thein Sein, Burma’s first civilian leader, elected in 2011. A former general, President Thein Sein brought mass political and economic reforms to Burma – among them the NCA. The National Ceasefire Agreement aimed to bring peace to Burma and unify multitude bilateral ceasefires that have been previously established around the country. Although it failed to meet its national aspirations, eight of the fifteen invited groups signed the agreement in October 2015.  This progress was marred with criticism after the main active armed opposition groups remained among the groups unwilling to sign the NCA.

This challenge to peace remains – Burma’s strongest opposition groups continue to oppose rather than negotiate with the government. Since 2011, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) is actively engaged in combat with the Tatmadaw (Burmese Army). This war continues, mostly forgotten in the wake of the Rohingya crisis in the south of the country, which has seen the mass forced migration of almost 700,000 civilians into Bangladesh among claims of horrendous and systematic crimes against humanity. These crises within Burma’s borderlands highlight not only obstacles to the NCA but to Burma’s transition from war to peace.

The signing of two more groups to the NCA, the first substantial development since the original signing in late 2015, should be a cause for celebration. It represents long awaited progress in a war of almost seventy years. At the signing ceremony, Daw Suu confirmed the government’s commitment to fostering peace with the ten or so EAOs yet to sign the NCA.  Nevertheless, the central concern remains the same – the largest EAOs still refuse to sign and conflict continues to plague many communities within the borderlands. There is no doubt that steps towards a more comprehensive NCA represent not only success for the peace process but for the NLD government, struggling to live up to citizen’s expectations as it is.

As things stand, these successes are more superficial than lasting. Less than one month on, cracks are beginning to show in this newly reconfigured ceasefire. At the end of February, a skirmish was reported between the NMSP and the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) in Ye Township of Mon State. Although fighting between the two groups is known to occur over land disputes, their newly forged alliance through the NCA provides a disconcerting backdrop to the escalation. This point is perhaps underlined by the Mon leadership’s refusal to give up their arms despite signing the NCA last month. A commitment to the peace process has been made, but the trust in it to work has yet to be forged.

Mistrust continues to undermine further agreements with non-members of the NCA. The Karenni National People’s Party (KNPP) has stated that it will delay its decision on whether to sign the ceasefire agreement until it can be established if the Tatmadaw were responsible for the deaths of three party members and a civilian. Although the Tatmadaw launched an investigation, the KNPP leadership remains unsure of its validity given the nature of the incident.

These proceedings demonstrate the fragility and complex environment in which the government attempts to forge nationwide peace and reconciliation. The signing of the NMSP and LDU has been a major step forward and may provide some momentum to what has been a beleaguered peace process. However, major obstacles to the NLD’s central objective persist. Fighting within the country continues between ethnic armed groups and the Tatmadaw, the Rohingya Crisis has taken on new proportions with villages now flattened within Rakhine State, and general mistrust of the army throughout the country remains high. Until the government can resolve some of these long-term underlying mistrust issues between the actors involved, it is unlikely that the peace process can be anything but tenuous.

 

Anna is a doctoral researcher in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. She received her BA in Politics and Economics from the University of York, before receiving a scholarship to continue her studies at York with an MA in Post-War Recovery. She was the recipient of the Guido Galli Award for her MA dissertation. Her primary interests include conflict and democracy at the sub-national level, understanding how transitions are implemented at the local level.  You can follow her on Twitter @AnnaBPlunkett

Image Source 

Banner: http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/two-rebel-groups-join-burmese-government-peace-process-11364250153132 

Image 1: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1089677.shtml