It has been over two years since Myanmar fell under the dark military regime’s rule. Over 4,000 souls have been killed, and thousands of civilians have been arrested. More than a million civilians have also been displaced due to the ongoing clashes between the military forces and revolutionary groups. Though the international community, especially the ASEAN, stresses ending the hostilities in Myanmar and urges the actors to engage in dialogue, it seems less likely to see the scenes of dialogues or discussions between junta forces and revolutionary democratic groups.
Seems to be a deadly stalemate but Not ready for the dialogue
Though analysts refer to Myanmar’s active conflict as a deadly stalemate, the situations on the ground seem not convincing to make such a conclusion. What seems clear is the Myanmar military’s ability to manage territory successfully has been declining. They have been defeated on various fronts of the fight. Many analysts have the same echo that the junta is losing its war. NUG’s Ministry of Defence released the news that the resistance forces had gained control of 30 army bases and more than 40 police and allied militia bases in the first six months of 2023. The NUG also claims that the Myanmar military lost at least 30,000 troops in two years of the coup. As per the analysis from USIP, about 21,000 military personnel out of the total 150,000, which includes roughly 70,000 combat soldiers, have been lost due to casualties, desertion, and defection since the coup occurred.
Nevertheless, both military and revolutionary groups firmly still stand on the vow not to have a constructive dialogue with each other. The strategy of military leaders is to crush the opposition NUG/PDF and exit through the means of the election. At the same time, the National Unity Government, a parallel government, also stresses not to talk with the junta but to end the military regime. While the conflict has escalated, the negative images of each other are also increasing on both sides, distancing the actors from engaging in dialogues. United Nations Special Envoy also commented, “With both sides intent on prevailing by force, there is no prospect for a negotiated settlement”.
Divided International Community
Though it is fair to say that the international community wants to see stability and peace in Myanmar, the approaches and values of the international community are dynamic, leading to division. China intends to mediate the conflicts through the ethnic armed groups based in the China-Myanmar border, maintaining a smooth relationship with the military regime, holding the principle of non-intervention. On the other hand, the Western world focuses on targeted sanctions on the regime and moral and technical support to the opposition groups. Even in ASEAN, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Brunei still want to maintain a good relationship with the military regime. At the same time, the rest of the countries increased their voices not to engage the military regime as long as the five-point consensus cannot be implemented and to engage both sides of the conflict. A prospective candidate of ASEAN, Timor Leste, also said they would not join ASEAN if the ASEAN could not solve the Myanmar crisis.
With united forces from the international community, there will be enough leverage for the conflict actors and a strong mandate for facilitating conflict mediation. Ironically, the international community is increasingly divided because of the Myanmar crisis. The apparent instance can be seen in the recent ASEAN Air Force Chiefs Meeting in Naypyitaw, in which the air force chiefs of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore decided not to attend the meeting.
Selected Peacemaking Effort of Biased Neighbor
Though China tries to take the role of mediation facilitator, the approach seems in favour of the military regime and is not inclusive. China engages only the ethnic armed groups on the China and Myanmar border. These ethnic armed groups seem to have a certain level of influence on active conflict actors, which the military regime claimed as terrorists. At the same time, engagement with these ethnic armed groups will not also frustrate the junta. Therefore, analysts believe that China’s engagement in mediation is biased towards the military regime and disruptive to the revolutions. China’s selected meeting did not seem very effective because the armed clashes broke out again between the military regime and an ethnic armed group called TNLA, which China facilitated with the junta a few weeks later.
The international community’s united and independent approach is necessary for the international community. The international facilitation team needs to be equipped with solid mandates and sufficient leverage on both actors. The dialogues must be inclusive, with the neutral and independent facilitation or mediation team.
Image – The Wire