This is seen by many to indicate intent to begin a mass offensive, if the political situation changes. Across a spectrum of people spoken to by
The Irrawaddy, from community workers of different kinds, religious leaders, displaced civilians and the military, mistrust is rife.
However, David Taw, who led the KNU delegation to sign a preliminary ceasefire agreement on Jan. 12, says there are two ways of viewing the situation. “If you look at it from the military point of view, [these fears] are correct. In the past, the [outposts] were isolated and cut off by our troops and it was very difficult for them to send food supplies to the area. Once the ceasefire was signed they sent food, and people noticed it was a lot and started thinking that they are preparing for another offensive.
“On the other hand though, if we don't open up communications with them and don't set up the liaison offices, how can we check how many soldiers are in the military camp, how much food is being sent and whether it more than enough. So, we need to set up liaison offices quickly so we can check whether this is ammunition, whether this is food support or medical provisions and then compare it with the number of troops in the region.”
Essentially, while there is valid rationale for mistrust, David Taw believes further progress with negotiations will be the best way to tackle the issue.
Stage two in the government’s roadmap demands that armed actors must essentially give up arms and agree to full assimilation into the state military and government. Only after this, in stage three, will amendments to the 2008 Constitution be able to be made, through the legislature in full accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
This approach threatens alienating much of the opposition, as they have made it very clear, in agreements that have been accepted by the government’s ceasefire delegations, that political dialogue is a must before giving up arms, or in some cases, even before ending hostilities. Notably, the “substantive political talks” that most major opposition groups have demanded will likely focus primarily on changes to the Constitution.
To almost all observers and even to many elected MPs, the 2008 Constitution is fundamentally flawed, given the amount of power and impunity it affords the military. For opposition groups struggling for greater autonomy in ethnic regions, this disdain is particularly acute, not only for the power it affords to the military, but because it gives the central government complete control over the local administrations.
The particulars of this imbalance are vast, but include the Union Legislature having total control over matters of security and law enforcement, large-scale industry, imports and exports, judicial matters, education and curricula, management of development of border areas, and the ability to void any state laws if they conflict with those of Union.
Furthermore, chief ministers, who then appoint the leaders of all local ministries, are selected by the President and not directly by local election. To those that have been systematically oppressed and abused for decades, and to the leaders that have been shut out of the political process, there is little evidence that anything will change with the 2008 Constitution in place.
Herein lies what will likely prove to the main obstacle to the peace process. While the government insists that amendments to it can only be made in Parliament, the ethnic armed groups, who were largely obstructed from competing the 2010 elections and would need to give up arms if they wanted to in the future, are demanding that such decisions be made outside of the Parliament at a nationwide conference, similar to that of the historical Panglong Conference of 1947.
According to Col Hkunn Okker, a Pa-O representative of the exiled United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) representing the ethnic minorities of Burma, who spoke at a press conference on the Thai-Burmese border in late February, “We reject a dialogue based on the 2008 Constitution. The government requires that the Constitution can only be amended in the Parliament so we reject [it].”
“The political settlement must be made outside the Parliament, at a political convention” further clarified La Ja speaking separately with The Irrawaddy. “This must be something like the Panglong Conference. All of the ethnic representatives, all of the political parties and all those on the government side, should sit together outside of the Parliament at a convention and talk about how to amend the existing situation.