The meeting, which is scheduled to last from 2 to 6 June 2015, is in the process of reviewing the draft text of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), which was finalized on 31 March 2015 by the Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT) and the Union Peace-making Work Committee (UPWC), according to Ethnic nationalities Affairs Center (ENAC), a think-tank closely related to United Nationalities federal Council (UNFC).
Part of Vijay Nambiar’s speech said, signing an Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) and establishing a political dialogue may serve as a stabilizing factor; the risks of delay and for missing this opportunity, if not signed; that the EAOs should have courage to sign it; and if it is delayed, UN might reconsider its support to the peace process.
A paragraph of his statement reads:
“The UN will lend you all the support we can muster in this process. However, if such a process were to be delayed until after the elections, even we may not be able to say with certainty what the scenario from the UN angle will be. But nailing it down now, could bring greater immediate commitment from the UN as well as the international community.”
The point here is whether the Union Solidarity and Development Party- Military (USDP-Military) regime could promise that after the NCA, there would be no more ceasefire violations. If the track record of state-level and union-level ceasefire agreements are of any indication, it is highly unlikely that the ratification of NCA would be of any different. The northern and southern Shan State Armies, even though both have signed state and union levels ceasefire agreements, hundreds of armed clashes were counted, during the last few years since the beginning of the peace process, in 2011. Armed clashes are still occurring between the two SSAs in February of this year, not mention the military onslaught of Kokang, Palaung and Kachin resistance forces in northern Shan and Kachin States. The Burma Army has signed deescalation of armed conflict with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), forming a joint-monitoring committee, but regime’s military offensives go on unabated to this days, under various pretext from accidental clashes to protection of natural resources being smuggled out and defending national sovereignty.
Another point to ponder is without agreed military Code of Conduct and Joint-Monitoring Committee to oversee that the ceasefire is adequately observed, there is little likelihood that ceasefire would hold. The regime and, as well even UN Representative Vijay Nambiar are selling the idea that even after NCA ratification, fighting could continue to occur. The Myanmar Peace Center (MPC) and regime’s officials often stated this line of reasoning, which means the military has no intention to withdraw their occupation forces from ethnic homelands.
The most important point though is not including the Panglong promises of 1947, which is the core essential agreement to establish a genuine federal union. This political legacy of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities and Burmese breaching of this contractual obligation – made between the Burman and the non-Burman ethnic nationalities in 1947 – must be addressed head on from the outset and included in the NCA, at least in a precise form, so that all could aim for the next step of political dialogue with a clear conscience.
As such, the crux of the ethnic conflict problem and democratization leading to a federal form of government is none other than the breaching of Panglong Treaty by the successive military and Burman dominated regimes, which first needs to be identified, taken into account and right the wrong. And only after this is accepted and acknowledged, will we be in a position to move further for reconciliation and peaceful co-existence process, under the motto of “unity in diversity”.
And as such, pushing to sign the NCA, which neither mention nor address the commitment to genuine federalism, based on national state, as agreed in the Panglong Agreement, is misleading and naive. It should be noted that the general phrase of “building a Union based on the principles of democracy and federalism” used by President Thein Sein could be anything from minimum devolution within the existing presidential unitary system, maximum devolution within the unitary political system set up, to genuine, fully fledged federal form of government.
No one could blame the far-sighted ethnic leaders that they want a political guarantee of building a national state-based federalism, where central government and national states power-sharing are equitably and adequately distributed, without any deviation, as agreed upon by our founding forefathers. The recent General N’ Ban La’s speech outlined this issue in a clear and defined manner.
According to VOA report of 3 June, N’ Ban La said the President’s interpretation of federalism is, in reality, trying to slam in or making the ethnic nationalities accept the military-drafted, 2008 Constitution, which is misleading and should be careful, on the second day of Lawkhila ethnic leadership summit meeting.
He said. “ All already know that President Thein Sein and some government officials have been saying that the ethnic nationalities’ federal aspirations could be granted easily. Some could be prone to believe it. 2008 Constitution is drawn as if it is a semblance kind of federalism and you gentlemen also notice it. When conducting political dialogue, we should be aware and careful not to be pulled into 2008 Constitutional law and regret it later.”
The Irrawaddy report of 3 June also urged other members of the Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT) to abstain from the agreement until all members were included. Three NCCT members—the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) and the Arakan Army (AA)—are still in active conflict with government forces.
In Myanmar Times report of 3 June, U Khun Soe Myint, general secretary of the Union Pa-Oh National Organization, said the president and ethnic armed groups had different concepts of federalism.
“The president used the words ‘a Union based on the principles of democracy and federalism’ whereas the leaders of ethnic armed groups use the words ‘a federal union’. These two terms look similar but actually they can move in different directions,” he said.
“The most important thing is to build a federal nation on principles guaranteeing the freedom, equality and self-determination of ethnic nationalities,” he said.
On the first day of Lawkhila meeting, Karen National Union (KNU) Commander-in-Chief Gen. Mutu Say Poe, said that he understood the differing political interest of the NCCT members, but insisted that the NCA should be sign to foster further negotiations and not considered it to be comprehensive agreement yet.
He urged his counterparts to regard the signing of NCA as an opportunity to continue discussions.
“The leaders [of armed organizations] must be courageous and sign the NCA, and continue the struggle at the discussion table,” he said.
“We must decide whether we take whatever we can get now, and continue negotiations in a determined manner so that everybody gains – or turn down the opportunity, and not get anything,” according to DVB report of 3 June.
As such, identifying the main, crucial cause might be the appropriate way to go about resolving the ethnic conflict, which is none other than the breaching of Panglong Agreement, signed between the Burman and the non-Burman ethnic nationalities. Otherwise, we will be muddling through, as we have done for the past four years, since the peace process has started in 2011.
