Signs of democratic reforms in Burma are welcome. But are they likely to help bring an end to ethnic unrest in Kachin state?
Burma’s flurry of reform measures, coupled with the breezy spirit of openness prevailing in the former capital of Yangon, has created genuine hope that Burma’s underlying fault line – its ethnic divisions – can now finally be resolved.
Yet the ongoing conflict in the northern state of Kachin looks like it could remain an intractable blot on the landscape as Burma attempts to shake off a 40-year legacy of rule by a brutal military junta.
“The president called for a ceasefire in March. But more troops were sent,” says Ja Seng Khawn, daughter of former Kachin Independence Organization Chairman Brang Seng. “The conflict has intensified. Government troops burnt down villages, and 65,000 civilians have fled from their homes.”
Earlier this month, government troops moved closer to Laiza, the largest town inside the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) liberated zone. And, despite calls for peace talks, the fighting is continuing.
Karen, Kachin, Chin, Shan and other dissident ethnic forces have been demanding equal rights and local autonomy for more than forty years, and their repression at hands of the military has thwarted any attempt to create a genuine Union of Burma based on its myriad cultures and diversity.
Prospects appeared to be brightening with the apparently reform minded President Thein Sein reaching out to non-Burmans, and efforts to bring a halt to the fighting have enjoyed better results in the case of the Karen National Union and its armed wing. A draft agreement for a ceasefire has already been signed.
After decades of bitter conflict with the central government, the dissident Karen forces never dreamed that one day the president would invite their banned organization to peace talks in the capital. However, on April 12,Thein Sein hosted seven KNU leaders in Naypyidaw after another round of peace talks was successfully concluded in Yangon.
Various sets of talks have taken place with other small ethnic armies, including the Karenni, Chin, Shan and others, but it’s primarily the resource rich Kachin state that finds itself excluded from the friendly embrace of the government’s charm offensive.
Indeed, there’s been very little charm exuded by the government peace panel responsible for the talks. The panel is led by Aung Thaung, a former industry minister described in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables as a “notorious hard-liner.” It has met a KIO Kachin delegation in China on three occasions, but without any success in reducing hostilities.
“Wecalled for military operations launched since June 2011 to stop, in order to achieve a ceasefire,” says Ja Seng Khawn, now based in Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin state, after years of working with the KIO leadership. “They didn’t listen to us. There’s no trust between the two sides.”
Photo Credit: Tom Fawthrop
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Tithiarun
From Run-Phnom Penh: Hi Tom i agreed with you unless the Thein Sein Government do not strong enough to remove some of his hardliner, Myanmar will have a long way to having peace. Some time in order to have peace it needs brave leader to put at risk his/her life. In the case of Cambodia, during Samdeach PM conducted his win-win policy in order to put an end the Khmer Rouge Political and Economical Structures, Hun Sen put his life at risk. He went to the Khmer Rouge Strategic Place (Pailin) while most of the top Khmer Rouge leaders still not convinced yet. Back to Myanmar, the military is the kingmarker, therefore Mr. Thein Sein, as a former general, is hugely believed to pick up by the military although his USDP won the general election in 2010. In conclusion, the challenges facing in Myanmar is how far Mr. Thein Sein dare putting his life face off military in order to implement the 1947 Panglong Agreement.
Richard
If one were to study what actually happened between Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and dictator President Robert Mugabe since 2009,one would surely agree that President Thein Sein and Ms Aung San Suu Kyi would be facing a more uphill struggle,the only good thing is that both seem to understand the difficulties they face,and that might well be the beginning of a very long journey.
Mishmael
I would agree with the author: there is very little chance that the recent political developments in Burma will end its civil wars.
FIrst, there is no evidence to suggest a sincere and meaningful transition to non-military government. The recent political developments could just as easily be cosmetic changes designed to bolster the junta’s hand vis-a-vis China, coming as it does during a time when the US is desperate for international evidence of a “pivot” to Asia. The junta has in fact undertaken many military offensives against minority armies after the opening up of its politics.
The idea of a Burma “union” is difficult based on the simple fact that the country has extremely disparate parts with very little in common. Ethnic Burmans make up about 60% of the country, but more importantly they are all concentrated in the central plain of the Irrawaddy river, and have very little presence elsewhere. This will make a hypothetical partition actually workable. Furthermore, many of the minorities like the Kachin have existed in a semi-independent state for decades already, with their own armies, social services and government. Many of them have independent relationships with third parties like China and Thailand. Of the other countries that have attempted such a union-like endeavor, most have failed or have cause unnecessary suffering. The examples include Sudan (broken up after decades of war and hundreds of thousands dead) Iraq (civil war, insurgency, ethnic/sectarian cleansing, massive casualties) and Yugoslavia (ethnic cleansing, massacres, rape, genocide). Burma is a country artificially created by imperialist shenanigans as well.
There is also the China factor. It is mostly interested in the economic and strategic assets of Burma, not its political unity. This is in stark contrast to Pakistan where economic and strategic interests within the country take a backseat to China’s overall strategic prerogative to keep that country together (because of India). If China comes to believe that the ethnic groups may be able to offer them greater political and economic benefits, then there will be no hesitation to dump the junta. Remember that the junta were never actually “allies” of China, and that they share a long, mutual animosity dating back to the communist insurgency which spawned all these ethnic armies. Furthermore, China’s relationships with the ethnic groups (which almost all inhabit the border region) is highly complex. Many depend upon supplies from CHina for existence (the Wa armies were very recently showing off Chinese-made weapons on China Defense Blog) which means that they must at least indirectly rely upon China’s tacit support.