09
2015
Charting a new path to peace
Union Day – February 12 – has been set as the new deadline for the signing of a nationwide ceasefire agreement. The most challenging part is walking the last mile, so it may be timely to revisit history.
It is not so that “it all began with Ne Win”, as one foreign expert recently asserted. General Ne Win’s contribution is the dominant role of the military since 1962, and the way this has influenced people’s minds.
But as professor James Scott has very convincingly documented in his book The Art of Not Being Governed, obstacles to a peaceful co-existence in Myanmar date as far back as the time when people with different ethnic backgrounds migrated from the north and east and either settled in the valley along the Ayeyarwady River or inhabited the surrounding hills, both of which today makes up Myanmar.
These groups were never at ease with each other. Apart from periods in history where powerful kings were able to assert a level of control over extended areas, lowlanders and highlanders mainly kept each other at bay, either through warfare or by the people in the hills paying tributes to monarchs in the lowlands.
British colonial power did little for state-building. Their main purpose of government was security and profit. In fact, under colonial rule Myanmar was administered as two entities: Ministerial Burma or Burma proper, under the governor; and the Karenni (Kayah) and Shan States, Kachin, Chin, the Trans Salween Area (Kayin) and the Naga Hills under indirect administration of the Office of the Frontier Service.
The first independent government was tasked with the challenge of incorporating and moulding loosely independent mini-states and numerous ethnic and tribal communities into a cohesive mutually supportive unit. Independence from Britain was essentially negotiated by the Bamar people of the plains, while a number of ethnic groups in the surrounding highland regions agreed to the terms of independence from the British, but without a real commitment to the national entity that was Burma.
Any hope of reconciliation and state-building soon faded. The U Nu government struggled for 14 years from one political and constitutional crisis to another, until General Ne Win seized power, effectively bringing to an end whatever remained of the trust that had been based on the Panglong Agreement. The intensified efforts of the Burmanisation propaganda that followed made relationships even more strained and, combined with attempts to rewrite history, caused many Bamar people to be unaware of the full background for the conflicts.
On assuming power in 2011, U Thein Sein’s government found itself confronted with the same distrust that has plagued Myanmar throughout its history. However, this distrust marks not only relations between the majority Bamar and other ethnic groups but also among the general population. A recent survey by the Asia Foundation revealed an astoundingly low level of social trust: 77 percent of all respondents to the survey believed that generally most people cannot be trusted.
Though these low levels of trust have historical roots, they need to be openly acknowledged and addressed before Myanmar can move toward a lasting peace. Without serious efforts to achieve some sort of reconciliation, it is questionable if peace can be secured. Concessions, or at least some concrete actions, are required that can establish the foundations of trust, and thereby move the peace process toward a genuine political settlement along the lines a federal system, tailored to the varying capacities of ethnic states and communities.
In his 2013 report, Creating a Future: Using Natural Resources for New Federalism and Unity, David Dapice, a professor from Harvard University, pointed out the opportunities for a peaceful co-existence based on fair sharing of the natural resources revenue.
However, most of this revenue currently goes to private, well-connected business interests. As control over Myanmar’s vast resources remains a key element of the conflict, Dapice’s model may well serve as an inspiration for negotiators.
President U Thein Sein has reached out to ethnic leaders from the first days of taking office and stated several times that federalism is on offer. It was further articulated in a letter by Minister for the President’s Office U Soe Thane published by the New York Times on November 14, 2014, in which he stated, “We are committed to a federal union formed under the principles of democracy, equality and self-determination.”
These are very positive tones. And with global political realities in 2015 as a backdrop, there is little reason for the Bamar majority to fear that a federal system will lead to a split of the country as could possibly have occurred in the past. While the constitution of 1947 gave Shan and Kayah states the right to secede from the Union after 10 years, separatism is today out of fashion. All major ethnic groups have committed themselves to the non-disintegration of the union.
In today’s environment, which nobody can deny is more peaceful than it has ever been during the last 60 years, there is now a chance for the Tatmadaw to test the will of the ethnic armed groups: by announcing a unilateral ceasefire. This would be a genuine show of confidence in the peace process and a confirmation of the military’s support to a democratic Myanmar. It could create a level of trust in the Tatmadaw and represent a significant contribution to the political negotiations that are the final goal.
Such a gesture could also pave the way for financial and technical assistance from international donors to remote border areas, which are important for achieving inclusive economic and social development. Directing a disproportionate slice of development assistance to the ethnic areas would not only reduce extreme poverty and address appalling social conditions in isolated communities, it would also help level out the inequality felt by the minorities. As a result it would also contribute to removing the mistrust and subsequent political problems that have plagued Myanmar for centuries.
Joern Kristensen is executive director of the Myanmar Institute for Integrated Development (www.mmiid.org), which specialises in Myanmar’s upland regions.
This article appeared in the Myanmar Times on February 9, 2015.
By Joern Kristensen
Reference: http://www.mmtimes.com/index.php/opinion/13024-charting-a-new-path-to-peace.html