Will Thein Sein’s peace offensive lead to a new political dawn?

Quite a lot of positive happenings have been making headlines during the last few days, notably where Aung San Suu Kyi’s interaction with the military regime and her freedom of movement, which could be taken as political ones, are concerned. The Pegu or Bago day trip, open letter to the President Thein Sein and ethnic armed conflict parties to the most recent meeting for one hour with the President himself, while, on the side line, attending a forum on the impoverished nation's economy on Saturday morning, have lined Aung San Suu Kyi’s busy agendas.

On the part of President Thein Sein, some policies to remedy the hard-hit country's economy, offering peace talks to end the armed conflicts with ethnic armed groups and reaching out for the return of dissidents staying in and out of the country, were spelled out, on the eve of Aung San Suu Kyi’s arrival to Naypyidaw to meet him.

Of all these measures, peace offensive is the most crucial issue, which needs to be seriously scrutinized. For political future of the country will depend on the outcome of this initiative.

Almost all of armed resistance groups participated the 1963 peace talks in Rangoon, including the Burma Communist Party (BCP), Communist Party, Burma (CPB), Karen National United Party (KNUP), New Mon State Party (NMSP), Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), Karen Revolutionary Council (KRC) and Shan State Independence Army (SSIA).

However, after several months, on 14th November, the peace talks broke down, due to the Revolutionary Council (RC) military government's pressure only to surrender and refusal to listen to their demands.

Points that were unacceptable to the negotiating parties include that “all troops must be concentrated in a designated area, no one must leave without permission, all organisational work must stop and fund-raising must stop”. (Source: Wikepedia -Communist Party of Burma)

Other than that, the RC was determined to pressure all political parties, including all the negotiating anti-government armed organizations to come under the banner of Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), which was due to be the sole party to govern the country.

In accordance with the RC directive, on 28th March 1964, a decree that dissolved all political parties and associations except the (BSPP) was issued.

After the 1963 nation-wide peace overture, piecemeal ceasefire negotiations were conducted by successive military regimes.

According to the recent military-backed government, since 1994, 17 major anti-government ethnic armed groups and 23 other small groups have made peace with the government. Of them, 15 groups laid down arms completely; five were transformed into government's border guard forces and 15 into militia. (Source: Xinhua)

The government official invitation, announced through the state radio and television on 18th August, directed at anti-government ethnic armed groups for peace talks to end internal dispute and build peace in the country is a positive, conciliatory gesture and should be welcomed.

The statement, which was read out urged ethnic armed groups engaged in conflict with the military to contact state or division governments as a first step leading to further meetings with a union government delegation, which is to be formed soon.

Almost on the heels of the announcement non-Burman ethnic leaders said that the government offer was doubtful and insincere, since the key demand of  collective participatory in the peace talks have been rejected.

The United Nationalities Federal Council (UNCF),  an alliance of some 12 ethnic armed resistance groups, disagree with the regime’s two steps negotiation plan and insists on a collective bargaining directly with Naypyidaw, which should first declares a temporary nation-wide ceasefire to create a matching atmosphere for a ‘political dialogue.’

According to Chinland Guardian of 19th August, “During one of the recent ceasefire talks with the KIA – against the KIA insistence that talks be held collectively with the UNFC members – the Burmese head of delegation Col. Than Aung likened the conflict situation with other ethnic groups to the relationship between parents and spoiled children, which he said, requires the responsible parents to deal differently with each child according to their individual behaviours. If this analogy represents the mentality of the Burmese government, then it would have validated the fear of the UNFC members that the Burmese government remains committed to its decades-old “Divide and conquer” tactics.”

The recent KIO statement, published by Kachin News Group, dated 17 August writes:

Clearly, the distrust of the armed ethnic groups on the military-backed government is enormous, for during the past few decades, the KNU and KIA have made several negotiations to find a political settlement but have always been pressured to surrender. On top of that, they are not ready to conduct a negotiation process within the mould of military supremacy, 2008 Constitution.

For the time being, it is still hard to predict whether President Thein Sein’s peace initiative will repeat the same failure of General Ne Win’s peace call in 1963 or break rank with the traditional, conservative military doctrine and deliver the long awaited peaceful co-existence and co-habitation for the benefit of the people.