CHIANG MAI - A Norwegian
government initiative in support of peace talks
between the Myanmar government and ethnic armed
groups fighting decades-old insurgencies has come
under fire. New efforts to overhaul the so-called
Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MPSI) may or may
not allay those concerns, let alone achieve
lasting peace in Myanmar's long restive ethnic
minority areas.
The Norwegian initiative
was launched after a visit by then railways
minister Aung Min, President Thein Sein's chief
negotiator with armed ethnic groups and exiled
pro-democracy organizations, to Oslo in January.
MPSI has aimed to facilitate talks between the
government and armed ethnic organizations through
funding for consultations with local communities, needs
assessments, and the
establishment of liaison offices near conflict
zones.
MPSI is bidding to address
conflicts where ceasefires already exist and a
peace process between the government and non-state
armed groups has been established. Some of the
insurgent groups, such as the New Mon State Party
(NMSP), have previously held ceasefires with the
government. Others, like the Karen National Union
(KNU) and the Shan State Army-South (SSA-S), have
only recently agreed to tentatively stop fighting.
A pilot project launched earlier this year
with the KNU in Kyauk Kyi township of southern
central Pegu Division provides emergency
assistance to internally displaced villagers
living in surrounding areas. Since then, MPSI has
conducted consultations with ethnic-based
organizations in Karen, Mon, Shan, Rakhine, and
Chin States.
MPSI intends to work with the
government, armed and political non-state groups,
non-governmental organizations, and civil society
and community organizations to establish and run
projects ranging from emergency assistance to
internally displaced villagers, to landmine
clearance, to employment generation. Naypyidaw's
apparent willingness to work with MPSI has been
interpreted by many analysts as a positive sign
for potential peace.
Initial criticism of
the initiative was sparked by perceptions that
funding for the initiative would divert funds from
aid groups that assist vulnerable populations
inside and outside of the country. Oslo had
earlier made a decision to cut funding to several
aid groups in a move Norwegian officials have said
is unrelated to MPSI and had been scheduled for
some time.
Norway has earmarked some US$5
million for MPSI and asked other donors to
contribute additional assistance. The funds are to
be channeled through government-approved
organizations based in Yangon. Norway's ambassador
to Myanmar, Katja Nordgaard, said in May that if
border-based aid groups set up offices in Yangon
then they would also be considered for funding.
Charles Petrie, head of the MPSI and
former United Nations humanitarian coordinator in
Myanmar, said in June that he favors new
opportunities to work openly inside the country.
The group's initial internal report, which was
leaked to the press, noted the potential for
groups working on the border to be sidelined by
MPSI.
That has not gone down well with
several groups that feel the humanitarian and
other services they provide are still relevant in
sight of ongoing armed conflicts. With the still
strong potential for a breakdown in ceasefires and
negotiations, several of these groups are wary of
moving their operations inside the country.
Indeed, many remain skeptical of the sincerity of
the government's reconciliation efforts.
These criticisms have surprised some
ethnic leaders, especially those involved in
providing assistance to internally displaced
persons. Rather than complaints from international
human rights groups and advocacy organizations,
grievances are arising from the various
community-based organizations established by
locals, often with the assistance of foreign
activists, donors and support organizations.
Groups such as the Karen Environmental and
Social Action Network (KESAN), Human Rights
Education Institute of Burma, and the Women's
League of Burma were created specifically to give
voice to Myanmar's disenfranchised populations and
chronicle abuses during military rule. Many have
continued to provide similar services with the
recent transition to quasi-civilian rule.
They flourished in the past 10 to 15 years
as Myanmar's plight emerged as a popular cause
overseas, and money, volunteers, and advice became
more readily available. Often working in
conjunction with the political wings of non-state
armed groups, they have put forward platforms for
change in Myanmar. At the same time, they have
largely maintained their independence in reporting
on the situation inside Myanmar and in carrying
out international advocacy work.
Some of
these groups are using their established platforms
to advocate for greater inclusion in the
Norway-backed peace process. This has forced
certain ethnic organizations, including the KNU
and SSA-S, to deal with civil societies they
perhaps never realized existed. Many ethnic
leaders apparently believed that their people were
narrowly committed to the struggle against
military rule but lacked a grassroots vision for
what form an eventual peace would take.
Grass roots uprising As
political organizations engaged in fighting
against the government, many saw themselves as the
exclusive owners of the peace process and until
recently sought little advise from community
organizations. Ethnic officials who spoke with
Asia Times Online said that for years their use of
funds and activities went largely unquestioned by
community-based organizations. With the advent of
MPSI, these same community groups are pushing for
more inclusion in the process, with many using
calls for more transparency as a way to win a seat
at the negotiating table.
That grassroots
push comes at a difficult time for groups like the
KNU and the Restoration Council of Shan State
(RCSS), among others. They must contend not only
with delicate negotiations with the government -
which are not universally popular among their own
rank and file - but also a burgeoning civil
society movement that they tacitly helped to
create in pursuit of their insurgency strategies.
Many ethnic leaders are also wary of the
Norway-led initiative, although for different
reasons. Their chief concern is a perception that
assistance may further the government's push for
economic development and the laying down of rebel
arms before political settlements are reached.
While many of the peace negotiations have
progressed farther than previous attempts, so far
little has been done to iron out the political
differences that underlie the various rebellions.
For the government's part, it seems to be
holding to a revisionist idea that the rebellions
have been motivated by underdevelopment and that
ramped up economic activities in ethnic areas will
bring peace through prosperity. This
interpretation, however, runs counter to the
narratives many ethnic groups have forwarded to
perpetuate their struggles. In almost every case,
ethnic political and military groups were formed
out of political grievances with the central
government, including demands for more ethnic
rights and self-governance.
MPSI has
rejected claims it supports the government's
position, saying in public statements that
economic assistance should not replace political
dialogue. The initiative's draft plan envisions
aid as a strategic tool to "test and build
confidence", but not one that replaces the need
for political resolution.
Decades of war
and mistrust cannot be undone in a few months.
Ethnic groups and the government will need to
gradually build trust in each other before any
meaningful political discussions can be held. Some
predict these discussions may be years off and
that until then there is a need to care for
internally displaced populations and build basic
capacities among ethnic groups.
MPSI has
recently bid to repair its image in the wake of
the leaked report. On August 31, it called a
second meeting in the northern Thailand city of
Chiang Mai to explain its aims and commitment to
be more inclusive of community-based
organizations. Few community organization
representatives, however, showed up for the
meeting, a signal that many believe the process is
inherently flawed, according to people familiar
with the situation.
An open letter signed
by five of these community organizations and
addressed to Norwegian Ambassador Nordgaard
criticized the meeting, saying "We feel Norway is
unable to demonstrate a good practice for MPSI
consultations." The groups referred to the MPSI's
consultations as "flawed, rushed and
un-transparent" and that they "have been and never
will be acceptable to ethnic communities and
community-based organizations."
These
individuals - often better-trained in capacity
building and community organizing than the
political cadre of either the government or the
ethnic political organizations - are generally in
closer touch with and thus better suited to help
their communities transition from war to peace.
With funds just beginning to be disbursed
to the new liaison offices established by the
government and armed groups, it is still too early
to appraise MSCI's peace prospects. Hopes are that
these new offices will transcend the handling of
local complaints and provide a focal point for
broad consultations with communities.
Ethnic political organizations, meanwhile,
are pushing ahead with their respective peace
processes, for now giving the government the
benefit of the doubt. While these tentative talks
move ahead, a negotiated settlement between ethnic
organizations, MPSI, and community organizations
will also be necessary to achieve a meaningful
peace.
Brian McCartan is a
freelance journalist. He may be reached at
bpmccartan1@gmail.com.
(Copyright 2012
Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact us about sales,
syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
