Negotiation for the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in Myanmar has reached a point where civil society organisations must take an active and robust role for finding new solutions to deep-rooted Myanmar’s armed conflict. The latest meeting between Armed Ethnic Organisations’ Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT) and the government’s Union Peacemaking Work Committee (UPWC) from 9 to 10 March 2014 at Myanmar’s Peace Centre in Yangon, discussed both sides’ proposals for a draft Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. Both sides expressed their satisfaction on the progress. Speculations among close observers indicated that the Agreement could be signed before the 1st August 2014, if everything goes well as planned.

Ceasefire agreements between armed ethnic groups and the Burma army or the Tatmadaw
 are nothing new. In the past, the Tatmadaw made a number of ceasefire deals with various armed ethnic groups but they have failed to address the root-cause of the ethnic conflict. Between 1989 and 1999, fifteen armed ethnic groups signed ceasefire deals with the Tatmadaw. In April 2009, all ceasefire groups were ordered to transform into Border Guard Forces (BGFs) as stipulated in the 2008 constitution. The scheme entailed that all armed ethnic groups entered ceasefire agreements to come under the partial control of the Tatmadaw. On the 1st September 2010, the government declared that all ceasefire agreements were invalid because none of the major ceasefire groups agreed to become BGFs. The Tatmadaw then re-newed its military pressure on the ethnic groups.

On 18 August 2011, the reformist government, led by President Thein Sein announced its desire to find new solutions to the country’s more than 60 years old civil war and has resumed negotiations with armed ethnic groups. At present, 14 major armed ethnic groups have signed ceasefire agreements with the government, but those agreements appear to be no more than a short-term fix that offers economic incentive through development projects. None of those agreements include concrete plan for the political dialogue to address the underlying political, economic and social cause of the on-going armed conflict.

Currently most armed ethnic groups have been collectively negotiating with the government for the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement that obliges the government committing to peace and political dialogues. The big question is will the ceasefire agreement lead to see the ending of the more than six decades civil war and how will a long lasting peace be achieved. Sustaining peace in Myanmar needs genuine political wills on all sides including the government, the Tatmadaw, ethnic armies, Burman and non-Burman political parties, civil society organisations, and concerned citizens. National reconciliation will only be meaningful if all key stakeholders are able to actively participate and make contribution at every level of the peace process.

Ceasefire agreement without political dialogues taking place will only increase the risk of returning to armed conflict. In the past, the government seemed to see ethnic groups’ armed struggle for their political freedom as solely legal issue. The government tended to view the problem of armed conflicts within a purely legal framework- a position which challenged the legitimacy of non-state actors. This approach explained the government’s refusal to enter genuine political dialogue with armed ethnic groups and as well as its insistence on disarmament or turning the ethic armies into subordinate national forces or Border Guard Forces. The reluctance on the part of the government to enter political dialogue has created a deep sense of distrust among armed ethnic groups.

For ethnic groups, the goal of political dialogue is to achieve equality as member states in the Union of Myanmar, in which they see lacking equality since the beginning of its formation. There are real challenging issues such as federalism, security reform, the return of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and refugees who are largely members of ethnic minority groups with many living in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, and addressing human rights and community grievances. Some of these issues and their concepts have never been publicly contested. Federalism, for instant, is viewed by the Tatmadaw as fragmentation and lacking unity among different ethnic groups. For ethnic groups, federalism is about relationships and power sharing between the Central Government and the States; self-governance to manage their political, cultural, economic, financial and social matters, and those pertaining to economic development. More importantly, they have always seen federalism is the only solution to Myanmar’s ethnic conflict.  Another major challenge will be implementing security reforms involving formation of a federal army that all sides agree to, gradual demilitarization as the situation improved and reintegration of ex-combatants into the community. The Tatmadaw has neither shown its intension to accept members of armed ethnic groups equally as its own army nor willingness to reform the security institution. Instead, it has mounted military pressure on some ethnic groups.

Recently, the army launched a major offensive again the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) and deployed more than 1,000 of its troops in the areas under the KIO control in Southern Kachin State and Northern Shan State at the same time as the KIO’s delegation team was attending the negotiation meeting for the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in Yangon. The army reasoned its military action was only to protect national census enumerators in those areas. As a result of the offensive, more than 3,000 local population was displaced from their homes. This kind of Tatmadaw’s behaviour did not help the Ceasefire negotiation and severely damaged confidence-building measures.

Participation of civil society organizations and concerned citizens is crucial for peace making and building as shown in other countries’ experiences. When community based organizations and concerned citizens take matters into their hands, in other words take initiatives and ownership of the peace building at local level, peace work tends to work better and more effectively. The Committee of Concerned Citizens’ peace initiatives to mediate the Naxalites (Maoist rebels) and the Indian Government in Andhra Pradesh State in India, Dekha Ibrahim Abdi of Kenya (or Somalia) and the Shari’ah Courts’ contribution to dispute resolution in Mindanao of the Philippines are some obvious examples how civil organizations and concerned citizens can significantly contribute to peace making and building. Civil society actors such as human rights advocates, student activists, religious community, the media and women organizations have been a vital force in the movements of democratization and have the potential to play a crucial role in national reconciliation and peace building.

Historically, civil society in Myanmar has been weakened and lacked the ability to influence at decision making level. But, as Myanmar’s political reform has opened up some public space and civil society has speedily re-emerged. Many civil society organizations work closely with the grassroots on the most sensitive public issues and they have proven to be effective in mobilising people, raising public awareness, help shaping public opinions and promoting actions. They can certainly help citizens to become more familiar with the terms and concepts of the Peace Agreement and provide vital links in the transition to and sustainability of post-war democracy. Civil society actors can help advance the notion that that national peace-making is intimately related to everyday life of all citizens. When civil society actors take pro-active role in peace building they also become an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure the government upholds its commitment to achieve genuine national reconciliation.

Trust building will requires improving governance. More than sixty years of civil war have taken a severe toll on administrative institutions which will need reform and strengthening to meet the needs and challenges of peace building. Political dialogues must be unconditional and include systematically and robustly dealing with human rights violations. Ceasefire agreements and peace accords alone will not necessarily bring about national reconciliation unless civil society organisations and concerned citizens are able to actively participate in the decision making and strategic planning for the peace process. However, not all civil society organisations will necessarily make positive contribution to the peace process. Potential spoilers to the peace process will always take the advantage of the fragile political situation and they need to be weeded out of the process.

So far, both the government and armed ethnic groups have only selectively or cautiously related to civil society initiatives, thus failing to capitalise on existing potential for conflict resolutions. Participation of women, as victims of the violent conflicts, in the peace process is also crucial to help prevent future violence and conflicts. To ensure the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement is fruitful and bring about true National Reconciliation, civil society actors from all sectors must be empowered and invited to take more pro-active role in the peace process.

(Sai Oo is a researcher at Pyidaungsu Institute for Peace and Dialogue. He holds a PhD in Community Education and Civil Society from University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). Opinions here expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent the Institute.)