The main responsibility for building a solution should rest with Myanmar’s elite and the leadership of both camps
The main responsibility for building a solution should rest with Myanmar’s elite and the leadership of both camps
TeaA month after a military coup that derailed a decades-old experiment with limited democracy, Myanmar is struggling to deal with the consequences. People are suffering, officials and opposition forces are locked in a cycle of violent clashes, the economy is deteriorating, and ASEAN’s mission to create solutions has failed.
interior view
When the Tatmadaw (military), unhappy with the victory of the Aung San Suu Kyi-led National League for Democracy in the November 2020 elections, decided to violate the constitution, it acted in the belief that the people would accept its decree, because They did in previous decades. Clearly, this led to public anger and an underestimation of their commitment to freedom and democracy. Even after killing more than 2,300 people and imprisoning thousands, including Ms Suu Kyi, the military still faces rebellion. His plans to hold elections next year are in jeopardy.
The opposition, along two major dimensions, has stopped the army from following its path. Firstly, the Government of Parallel National Integration (NUG) may not be recognized by any state, but it continues to receive political and financial aid from abroad. It has effectively channeled popular resentment against the military regime, while still vulnerable to a lack of resources and the absence of a visible leader. Second, about 20 ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) located east, north and west of Myanmar’s periphery have differing approaches to the post-coup conflict. Many see this as an intra-bomber competition, which is of limited concern to them. Some Karen and Kachin support the NUG, while others, notably those controlled or supported by China, remain separate. People operating in the Chin and Rakhine states have engaged in a fierce armed conflict with the military and have weakened it. But overall, because of their divergence and relative weaknesses, EAO’s forces are unlikely to be defeated.
Thus, while the opposition has done well, it is unable to turn the tide in its favor without a nationwide front against the Tatmadaw. National reconciliation between military and civilian forces, and ethnic reconciliation between the majority Bamar and ethnic minorities has been prevented. The most popular leader, 77-year-old Ms Suu Kyi, has been sentenced to 26 years in prison for allegedly false charges in several cases.
In addition, 1.1 million Rohingya are languishing there, driven by military persecution to seek refuge in Bangladesh in 2017. Dhaka’s efforts to arrange for his safe return have failed. Armed conflict between the military and their ethnic adversaries in the border region is raging in Bangladesh. Dhaka has continued to show restraint and has given priority to diplomacy to manage the situation.
international dimension
The United Nations has been critical of the coup. It has expressed concern over the ongoing violence, support for a ‘democratic transition’, the release of all political prisoners and dialogue between the parties concerned. However, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy has had little success in promoting peace. The failure of the United Nations lies in the sharp division within the international community over how to deal with this complex issue.
The Western powers have been fiercely critical of the army. They have taken several restrictive measures and imposed more restrictions. He has supported NUG. Russia, on the other hand, has given considerable support to the military regime in its own isolation, seeing an opportunity to strengthen bilateral cooperation in defense and energy supply. China is keeping the door open to democratic forces while doing business with the regime and is taking every opportunity to ensure progress on the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor. ASEAN is divided in three ways: Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are pro-democracy; Thailand and Laos are military supporters; And Vietnam and the Philippines are bilateral. This split and Tatmadaw’s refusal to cooperate with ASEAN have not implemented the five-point consensus. The upcoming ASEAN summit could provide clues as to whether the grouping can take a united stand and do better. India is concerned as the post-coup situation has adversely affected its interests and hampered bilateral cooperation. Mega projects are getting delayed. According to unofficial estimates, around 50,000 refugees are camping in Mizoram.
Meanwhile, there is a misconception that India has abandoned the people of Myanmar. The reality is that India actively advocates early restoration of democracy, release of prisoners and internal dialogue. Can India do more? It may also explore the possibility of a joint mediating role with ASEAN and like-minded neighbours. Would China have a role in such a grouping? India-China relations rule out this possibility.
Through greater unity, external players can help Myanmar create an environment conducive to negotiations on a political settlement. Remote countries such as Norway and Japan can play a supporting role as a catalyst. But the main responsibility for creating a solution should rest with Myanmar’s elite and the leadership of both camps. Through flexibility and practicality, he forged a path in 2011-21. They have to recreate that feeling. The ‘Golden Land’, where Lord Buddha is revered, needs to be re-inspired by his teachings. Otherwise, a long, conflicting military regime or a failed state would seem a distinct possibility.