Even the fastest-transforming countries in the last century took between 15 and 30 years to raise their institutional performance from the level that prevails in many of today’s fragile states. 

2015 report, Advisory Group of Experts for reviewing the UN Peace building Architecture

Representatives from EU, UN, World Bank and the Swiss embassy are coming to grace the event. Others include representatives from EAOs and political parties plus busybodies like myself. 

The first speaker is Ulrike, reportedly one of the most published researchers on the concept of infrastructures for peace. 

As usual, my old brain doesn’t catch much of what she has tell to us. Not only hers but also those of the others, as all of them are trying to give us as much as they can within the little time allowed to them.

But as always, I manage to absorb a bit from each. Some may of course say, “a little knowledge is dangerous,” but they’ll find others who see quite differently, saying “a little is better than nothing.”

Which reminds me of what I read in a book. It goes like this:

“Have you heard about the Devil quoting Scriptures for his own ends?”

“The Devil survives,” I replied.

(The Walking Drum, Louis L’Amour)

Well, I don’t know if I’m a Devil, but I wish I’ll be able to learn more so I can share what I’ve learned with others.

All in all, the following are things I think I’ve gleaned from them. 

• Peace infrastructures—forms of engagement between conflict parties and other stakeholders—are important. They are symbols of commitment to peace, eg. JICM, JMC, UPDJC, etc. (Ulrike)

• Likewise, manifestations also matter: size of buildings, shapes of meeting room tables, flags, statues etc (Ulrike) (In this respect, do the three kingly statues in Naypyitaw manifest the government’s commitment to peace?)

Colombia

• With Colombia, which I have written one article in December, a few more things are noteworthy, like the formation of several offices like Office of the High Commissioner for Peace, Agency for Re-integration of Ex-combatants and Victims Unit. Moreover, all the functions of each government ministry must converge on the peace process 

• Colombia is also one country where 90% of the money spent on peace building comes from government coffers (Alejandro)

Three countries: Colombia, Nepal and Aceh (Indonesia) share one common feature: DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration) comes first or earlier 

(Need to find out why they did it and we won’t)

The Aceh peace process is certainly notable:

• Like Burma, the condition was: no secession.

The rest was negotiable.

• But unlike Burma, the Aceh rebels must turn over/destroy their weapons in exchange for the reduction of government forces in Aceh

• Seven months of hard negotiations brought them into agreement. Here are the reasons given by Dr Kuntoro:

1. Political will

2. Effective precision peace negotiations 

3. Committed government and armed forces (government control over armed forces)

4. Speedy legislation and implementation 

5. Public acceptance

6. Economic facilitation and welfare 

7. The tsunami that devastated the island on 26 December 2004

8. Strong facilitation by Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari

Nepal

Indian cooperation was crucial in bringing the peace process to success. “Arguably an India-led process,” one researcher had written. “However, (Indian) engagement was subtle, invisible and did not have, direct intervention and participation,’ says D.B Subedi. At the same time, it must be remembered that another Nepalese researcher I met in Penang in March had said otherwise.

Sri Lanka

The process there, apart from the breakdown of negotiations by both the government and the Tamil Tigers, have been heavily criticized for “over-internationalization.” Involvement of superpowers, especially China and India are mentioned but not elaborated. “Peace can mean a big change for everyone,” says Karin, summing up quite clearly. “It will happen when they feel comfortable about it.”

The afternoon session is spent discussing the need to find a new ‘center of gravity’ to replace the now defunct Myanmar Peace Center (MPC).

The MPC, for all its faults, had been a master key that had opened doors both to the government and the military. But now, with its ‘DDR’ without an on time replacement, the peace process appears to be at a standstill, says one discussant. 

Another points out to a significant development following the signing of the NCA in October. 

“Before it was just between the NCCT (Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team formed the EAOs) and the government. But now, it’s different.

On the EAO side, we have the signatories and non-signatories. (On the government side, we now have different entities: government and military.)

The signatories no longer focus on the process but substance. However, the non-signatories are still focusing on the process.

It took U Thein Sein more than 4 months after he came into office to extend his invitation to the EAOs. The new government is only a little more than a month old. 

We should therefore make allowance for that.”

The seminar concludes at 18:30. 

Still no news from Dr Tin Myo Win.