You cannot talk when you are shooting at each other. When there is shooting, emotions are high and the conflict can escalate to the point where it can no longer be controlled. At that point, your chances for a political dialogue are nil.
The government’s proposal is naturally viewed with suspicion. But this is only the second time in 50 years that the government has made an official offer for peace talks. The first time was in 1963 by Gen Ne Win. The other peace talks in 1989 and the early 1990s were technically not official. They were made surreptitiously by the intelligence service. Therefore, the current offer should not be rejected out of hand. It should be explored. In any ceasefire negotiation, it makes sense for the actual combatants on the ground to negotiate conditions since the requirements are specific to their circumstance. So talking to the state government for steps 1-3 should not in theory present a big problem.
Any opponent in a conflict will seek to “divide and conquer.” That is normal. Everyone wants to negotiate from a position of strength. Therefore, the key to not being exploited is to be prepared. If one is prepared, it does not matter what tactic is used by your opponent. You can negotiate as a group or as many groups. If one is unprepared, you will be defeated even if you negotiate as a single group.
When it comes to a political dialogue, the armed groups are not the only stakeholders. They are an important stakeholder. But the people represented by their communities, their religious and cultural institutions, and the political parties also need to be included, otherwise, we will not have a lasting political solution. This is clearly demonstrated by the ceasefires of the 1990s. Deals were made between the leaders of the Tatmadaw and the armed groups, there was a kind of peace but it was not sustainable, and no political solutions were found.
A cessation of hostilities can be implemented immediately. Negotiating the details of a ceasefire that will ensure hostilities will not break out again can take time—maybe even a year. Seeking a political solution can take even longer. It needs to involve not only the seven ethnic states but the whole nation. But the steps do not need to take place sequentially. Political consultations can start as soon as there is a cessation of hostilities.
Q: You have also reportedly offered to play a role in efforts to restore peace in ethnic areas. Is this correct, and if so, what role do you envision for yourself?
A: I do not envision any role for myself beyond encouraging all stakeholders to seek a peaceful political solution that is equitable and just. Successive governments have tried to resolve the “ethnic problem” in the wrong way. Anyone trying to present an alternate view has always been seen as a subversive. The majority population of Bamas (or Burmans) has never understood why the ethnic groups have been so troublesome. Neither do any of the leaders past and present. Therefore, resolving the problem properly will not be easy. The government and the general population need to understand the root causes and why the ethnic people are not “grateful” for the “generosity” of the big brother Bamas. Decades of counterinsurgency operations have exacerbated the hatred and resentment. The recent study released by the Ethnic Nationalities Council tries to address some of the issues. We need more such interactions.
Most people—Burmese and the international community—still think of the ethnic problem as a peripheral issue. They believe that once we have democracy in Burma, the issue can be resolved. That is not true. The problem originated in the democracy era. We lost our freedom and democracy because Gen Ne Win did not agree with the way the democratically elected government of U Nu tried to solve the problem by amending the Constitution. The Tatmadaw will never allow full democracy to flourish in Burma, unless the ethnic issue is resolved to its satisfaction.
The question is—can we find a solution that will satisfy the ethnic peoples, the majority Burmans and the Tatmadaw? A possible way forward would be to use the provisions of the 2008 Constitution that allows state legislatures and state governments. The mandate of these state institutions is limited but this is the only constitution of the Union that begins to address the issue of internal self-determination that the ethnic states have been advocating since independence in 1948. The mandate could be expanded which would be in line with the president’s decentralization policy.