Maroc - EURASIAREVIEW.COM - A la une - 05/Jan 00:21

Status Quo Frame In Burma’s Internal Warring – OpEd

The military regime in power is the status quo. It sees itself as the eternal and indispensable actor/player in Burmese politics to the point that Burma is like its private property which it profits from. However, it was under pressure to open up if it wanted to keep the status quo going, thus that “controlled democracy interlude” with a constitution which kept power in its hand. Displaying it was ready to change and transit to a democracy, the regime played and plays the NCA process but always on its own terms, in its control. Across the table the participating EAOs thought they should end the wars through negotiations prospecting the post-military era and democratic federalism. They bought into endless protracted rounds of negotiations without seeing a light of the day till today. When the military regime found that this controlled democracy experiment didn’t go their way with the NLD and its famous leader getting the upper hand, it was time to finish off this democratic experiment to preserve the status quo.  What followed next was the contestation of the status quo with brutal repression and suppression and the unfolding of the rest of the events till today. In this it is the young that is contesting the status quo with the help of certain older resistance armies while other old soldiers were sitting on the fence or continuing with the NCA process. They are part of the status quo in the same boat as the military regime. The NCA types still saying a political issue must be solved through a political process meaning no more battles, no wars when they were in battles with the military. This poses a problem when the military regime does fall and the fighting resistance wins. A new war? The actions of the UWSA also defends the status quo since they have their own territory and new ones without objections of the SAC and has the support of China. How does its allies feel about it? ASEAN and its Member States are status quo powers, and they are in a world of status quo diplomacy. Hence, they cannot really sanction the military regime and put ASEAN at risk of a split since it is divided, risking losing its centrality, straining its raison d’être. They had to come up with a compromise, the 5-point Consensus, “in helping the people of Myanmar to achieve an inclusive and durable peaceful resolution to the crisis” with a few Member States grudgingly entertaining contacts with the NUG over time. They stick to the status quo fearing chaos in a post status quo as the statement cited above reveals especially “peace, security, and stability in the region” in the same statement. Here is the primary concern of ASEAN.  In this context of the 5-point Consensus, the only thing ASEAN has hit on is emergency aid and even then it passes through the status quo SAC when IDPs in the areas under resistance control is where needs are largest.  Thailand on its own initiative talks of helping SAC to organise elections to bring in some legitimate government under the existing Constitution which keeps power in the hands of the SAC. This is similar to the present Thai political status quo where the military is lurking behind the scene. It is supporting a status quo way out, the future election which also has China’s support. This obviously will be opposed by the resistance and as some analysts say will not solve the problem and no peace and stability will occur. Now we hear that Thailand wants to mediate between the KNLA and the KTLA. Isn’t this interference in the affairs of another country even if for any good reason? ASEAN is ineffective. It can continue with its bla, bla, bla, retreats, conferencing and meetings etc..  ASEAN does not have the confidence that the resistance will win and be capable of forming a new state and bringing stability. The status quo is a sure bet for order and stability rather than chaos. Hence, the resistance must prove, rout out the junta on the ground in winning the civil war, a ceasefire at least between resistance forces and the first steps towards the establishment of a federal or co-federal state: a transitional government at least to hold the country together. This will then give some confidence to ASEAN which will then have to accept the reality of a new sitting power in Myanmar. East Timor is an example and explains why she whole-heartedly supports the Myanmarese/Burmese resistance. She too had to fight to be recognised and accepted by the status quo ASEAN powers and now it is part of the status quo.  The rest of the international community is in the entourage of supporting ASEAN. Japan as a status quo power through its envoy or envoys tried to mediate between the regime and certain resistance armies but now it is gone with the wind. She still has her investments while the NUG and other local civil society organisations call for divestment. Australia has for years continued to entertain relations with the SAC with the rational that one of its citizens was in prison but it has always thought that it had influence having military-to-military relations which has ended. The far away EU has been using funds and still does support civil society actors but no call of divestments (garment and textile industries) because it will result in job losses. The US, the one power does not appear to see Burma as a strategic interest even in the face of China or she accepts that Burma is part of the Chinese sphere of influence. She has her Burma Act but we have still to see what it is concretely. A bit of what she gives to Ukraine or Israel will help the resistance to overcome the regime but fears entering into confrontation with China. All these external powers have sanctions, the easiest thing to do but has it got real effects. The UN is the only vigorous institution acting on Burma. Africa and South America has been quiet except for Gambia and Argentina both related to the Rohingyas. They are all very good at making statements. Wonder how many tons of paper have been spent if these statements are printed out. They all see the sitting military regime as crucial to negotiate with the resistance for peace. None will line up behind the resistance except East Timor if I am not provocative. For their own reasons, they are reinforcing the centrality of ASEAN to find peace in Myanmar and S.E. Asia. Myanmar does not appear to be at the top of their foreign policy agenda. There are more pressing concerns. They are all after a status quo solution. My message to the resistance is that the bottom-line is to rely on your own efforts and make yourselves credible meaning unity rather than internal disputes. The NUG must be a credible alternative for the status quo powers to dialogue with not necessarily recognition, but it is, however, challenged by other EAOs who themselves are in contact with external powers. This brings me to China. The scene is free for China to deal in its own way with Myanmar motivated by its huge investments in the country and pursuing its intention of having access to the Indian Ocean. We have seen her arranging ceasefires between the SAC and the Northern Alliance allies. This, of course, puts a lie to China’s non-interference policy. We are mediators they say while saying we are against foreign interference. It seems to have gone further by putting pressure on the EAOs under its wing, the TNLA, the MNDAA to stop fighting. Will China send in its troops to protect its investments? It should not be a surprise if she does. She has opted for her joint private security company behind which are mercenary soldiers. These Chinese moves will increase anti-China sentiment towards her that does not bode well for future relations. The latest is supporting a general election as a status quo solution to the alternative chaos it perceives. How does the EAOs which she supports feels of this? She is siding more towards the SAC than towards the resistance these days. China wants to bring an end to the Myanmar crisis but on its own terms and interests. With the NUG, there is no evident ties while the NUG has issued its pragmatic policy towards China. What really counts is that the NUG and the resistance must show it’s a credible alternative. Winning battles expanding territorial control is not enough.  India in courting the military regime because of China (China in the Indian Ocean) is just allowing the regime space to play a game between the 2 giants to its own benefit. But it is no match to China. Am I provocative here for India? She anchors herself with Myanmar by her investments, the Kaladan to speak of one, which is no comparison with China’s. It is stated that she wants Myanmar’s cooperation regarding the Indian insurgencies on its border with Myanmar while its border states are sympathetic to their brethren across the border, the Chins for example. In no way is India in a position to contribute positively to bring about a peaceful solution inside Myanmar and without any openings with the resistance and the NUG. It has put all its cards with the status quo regime. She is making it difficult for the Rohingyas to take refuge. She has no solidarity with them. She is just thinking of its own selfish national interest like all other states countering China primarily. Lately with China’s move of her joint private security company, India has started engaging with the AA along with CNF, KIA and the NUG as reported. An example here of a status quo power having to recognise the reality on the ground to engage with a resistance army to its fellow status quo SAC. Bangladesh evokes sympathy and thanks for housing the Rohingyas but are the Rohingyas a cash-cow for Bangladesh through all the monetary transfers she receives and where is all this money going to. Its call for repatriation is going nowhere while its government and even the press, writers, analysts, the thinkers talk of security. We don’t see any seriousness to stamp out trafficking, the Rohingya armed groups that terrorise the Rohingya population the latest being recruitment to fight the resistance in their homeland allying with the SAC. Will the new interim government led by a Nobel Prize Laureate take hold of the Rohingya issue and deal with it in a positive sympathetic way? With the complete control of the border towns along the Bangladesh-Burmese border by the AA, time for Bangladesh to entertain talks with the AA, a non-state actor, the language of the status quo. Concretely, it is with the AA that it has to speak to of repatriation but the AA will not accept if the Rohyinga armed groups are not annihilated especially when they are aligning with the SAC. Finally, are the journalists, the commentators, the analysts, the opinion makers who write about what is happening in Burma/Myanmar. Without putting all in the same bag, they are writing in a mindset with the starting point of the status quo. To start with is the language of the status quo: terrorists, insurgents, rebels…… and what else instead of speaking of the resistance, the freedom fighters, the revolutionaries as the resistance call themselves……. Then, with the status quo in mind, how the SAC is facing up to the resistance, to the opposition? What are their manoeuvrings? Speculating on what is happening within the ranks in SAC. How long they are going to last? Speculating on the SAC as a necessary, indispensable actor in power-sharing as a way out to avoid chaos, instability even when populations of Burma want the SAC out of politics, of government. We need to see much more analysis, opinions from the point of view of the resistance. Factual reportage of their victories and losses, stories of the people in the resistance, the situation of the IDPs, there are but not much speculation on how they are going to or could overcome the SAC? How are they going to change the status quo? Is the resistance just going to fight to the last man to remove the military? The tipping point when the balance of power will change. Has it changed? At what point is the resistance ready to negotiate? Perhaps the resistance, the NUG are not even thinking through when they are ready to negotiate to end military rule. And after the end of military rule? Hence, more on the internal dynamics of the resistance, their unity. More on how the NUG works, more on the progress of the NUCC. Perhaps this is top secret not to inform the SAC. How could analysts supporting the resistance share their views with the resistance on how to proceed to topple the status quo, what to do with negotiations. The final word is that analysts, observers, commentators, journalists ….. have to take a stand and not sit on the fence in a so-called neutral position.