It is a shame that the three excluded Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) are to be left out in the cold, as the Aung San Suu Kyi initiated 21st Century Panglong Conference (21CPC) is about to be kicked off on 31 August, which she insisted should be as all-inclusive as possible.

The disagreement arose from the choice of words between the military and the three excluded EAOs, when the parties met a few weeks ago in Mongla or National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA) capital, in Shan State's golden triangle, to iron out the phrase that the military wanted them to publicize and promised.

The military told the three EAOs that they should make their repentance which includes the line saying, “The total, complete desire to abandon and end the principle or way of armed (struggle)”.

But the three were only ready to write down,“The total, complete desire to abandon and end the armed conflict”, rejecting the military demanded abandonment of “the principle and way of armed struggle”.

It should be noted that the exact Burmese words for “Let Net Kaing Larn Zin/Nee Larn” could be translated to the “principle/way of (using) arms or weapons (to achieve a goal)” without attribute emphasizing “armed struggle, armed resistance or armed rebellion”, just to mention a few.

But for a Burmese or those well-versed in the language, it is quite clear that it has a negative connotation, with unmistakably tarred aggressiveness, which could mean more to be outlaws, bandits, insurgents and the likes and not in anyway been seen as a “freedom fighter” or “resistance fighter”, with lionising effect as in the West.

Such being the case, it is understandable that the three EAOs refused to yield to the military's demand, apart from the critical question on why they were asked to lay down arms or make repentance to give up armed struggle to enter the peace process, when all the others were not even asked to do so.

The natural answer from the military side is that the three are on armed engagement terms, while the others are not and thus, the need for laying down their arms or at the least, to repent that their armed struggle is completely wrong. The military also accused Kokang or Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) of starting the fight first by attacking government positions, last year in February.

The Kokang conflict, in which the Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) and Arakan Army (AA) fought along side with MNDAA, started as head of MNDAA Peng Jiasheng launched an offensive, in a bid to re-establish his authority in Kokang self-administrative zone, from where he was expelled by his competitors from within his own army. The then military government sided with his deputy Bai Xuoqian, Peng’s deputy, who is now the Naypyitaw’s point man there.

Thus from the military point of view, MNDAA is an aggressor, while Peng Jiasheng considered that he is only trying to right the wrong, to regain back its authority, robbed from him, which the military abetted and assisted it with vigour.

And for the three EAOs, as armed struggle is part of the resistance against political injustice and grievances, and to admit that their struggle is wrong, coupled with repentance would never come to their mind, much less accepting it.

Still a question arises, as to if this demand is the directive stemming from Aung San Suu Kyi, for it doesn't make sense for her to initiate all-inclusiveness without conditions, particularly where the participation of EAOs is concerned, and let her peace negotiators demand repentance first to become participants in the 21CPC or peace process.

In the BBC recent report, Deputy Director General of the President's Office Zaw Htay when asked whether if this handling of the three EAOs is Suu Kyi's desire, replied: “Under National Reconciliation and Peace Center (NRPC) there is Peace Commission (PC) and under State Counsellor's control, there is Preparatory Committee for 21CPC, which is made up of the government, military and parliament.”

He pointed out: “When the Preparatory Committee tabled policy matters, the State Counsellor has to make decision. Here the high ranking military officers are also included, where their policies and the State Counsellors' desired policies are adjusted. This policy decision is what State Counsellor has agreed upon is also the opinion of the military and the parliament.”

Zaw Htay further stressed and reasoned the side-lining of the three EAOs as: “Our words (position) said that those who are appropriate and ought-to-participate (could take part in the peace process).”

But this actually negate the posture of joint-ownership of the process that Suu Kyi and her government have been keen to promote. For the government should not be barking out orders and making decisions on who should participate and who not, as an ethnic representation has to be decided by the individual ethnic group that is directly concerned.

Still, in order not to look so rigid or uncompromising from the part of the government and military regarding the disagreement over the choice of words, Zaw Htay said: “While (we) wait for the result of this negotiation until the convention (starts), the door will be kept open (for the future).”

As it is, the 21CPC will not be all-inclusive participation and the war in Kachin and Shan States would go on, if the ongoing and recent heightened Tatmadaw's offensives could be taken an indication of its continued confrontation policy, parallel with the convention that would be held every six months.

No doubt the pressure of big neighbouring country across the border for all-inclusiveness and comprehensive peace negotiation, coupled with the United Nations and international push and endorsement, would have made an impact on how the military should behave. But despite its meeting with the three EAOs twice recently in Mongla to show the public that it is also for all-inclusiveness, its resistance to stand down from its military supremacy stance, laced with Bamar ethnocentrism, could not be underestimated. We have seen on what it could do to make Suu Kyi's all-inclusiveness policy looks like and so long as it refuses to obey orders from the civilian government, or keen to manipulate the government decision-making power, all would have to wait quite a while for a long-lasting solution and political settlement that encompass all the ethnic peoples of Burma, Bamar included.