Guest contributor

Khin Ohmar

On this International Day of Peace, I wish for us all to honour the visionary leadership of Padoh Naw Zipporah Sein. *Thramu Zipporah was unwavering in her principled commitment to a sustainable and just peace for the Karen people, and for all people of Burma. She would not compromise human security or dignity in the name of stability.  She often reminded me that the Karen people had been in armed resistance for over 60 years, so we cannot expect peace to come quickly.

*Sayama Zipporah believed deeply in community-based initiatives to ensure all voices and perspectives were represented. Back in 1999 at the founding conference for the Women’s League of Burma (WLB), she immediately supported my proposal for a women’s peacebuilding and national reconciliation program. I was fortunate to have her as an advisor as I developed and implemented the program. We have always been on the same page when we think about peacebuilding:

• We must work mindfully and honestly in a collaborative and systematic way;
• We must never compromise our principles and never give in to pressure or coercion for quick fix solutions, or else the cycle of violence will continue; and
• We must remember that peace is not only about stopping the fighting, it is also about building the foundations that ensure human security and justice for communities on the ground, especially women and other marginalized groups.

But I fear that while most of us are fighting for peace, too many powerful people are simply trying a quick fix for so-called stability.

The Myanmar military is on the brink of collapse and the leverage of power is already shifting to the resistance movement. Despite this unprecedented landscape, the international community (including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China and peace donors) continue to use old tactics in pursuit of a ‘conflict resolution’ for Myanmar.

They are using the same calculations and formulas of the past that have failed to achieve genuine peace. These actors are increasingly pressuring revolutionary forces and civil society to engage in dialogue and negotiations with the Myanmar military, and then elections, with quick-fix solutions for their state-centric approach to stability of the Myanmar state.

But stability does not mean peace.

Stability without the protection of human rights, and without justice and accountability, can never achieve durable peace. Zipporah understood this. Her insistence on human dignity, equality, justice and accountability, and on challenging the status quo and power structures, had her labeled as a hardliner. For me, this is the very definition of a peacebuilder.

Like Zipporah, I cannot accept any solution imposed on us that will keep our country trapped in this cycle of violence and tyranny, prolonging the suffering of our people and communities for the next generation. If that makes me a hardliner, then I wear the label proudly.

We must learn from the 2011 peace process that led to the not-so-nationwide “Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement [NCA]” that eventually failed. The rush to negotiate settlements with the military inherently prevented the process from being genuinely democratic and inclusive while causing more lack of trust or divisions among those in opposition to the military.

The so-called peace process kicked off with a one-sided agenda framed and dominated by the military. There were no safe and meaningful opportunities for other stakeholders to have any say, much less equal participation and decision-making, in the framing, design, or development of the process.

International stakeholders and peace donors lent their political and financial support to the military process even before the National League for Democracy (NLD) or Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) had a chance to consult properly and agree to the negotiation. They were pressured into joining the process backed by the international community, either through fear that they would be politically excluded, or with the genuine expectation that this time this military would really change. Others were pressured through more overt coercion, incentives, or military might.

One particularly insidious tactic used against the EAOs by peace donors was providing incentives with development projects in their areas in exchange for ceasefire agreements. The infamous Lay Kay Kaw “peace town” is among the most glaring examples of the problematic nature of these incentives: it was built with peace donor money to house returnees from refugee camps in Thailand in 2015, and was hailed as a model. The Myanmar military then targeted and destroyed it with airstrikes in the months following its illegal coup attempt on February 1, 2021.

Zipporah was outspoken in her opposition to linking ceasefire negotiations and development projects, and she was severely sidelined as a result. I remember vividly one time when a military negotiator approached me and spoke condescendingly of Zipporah, trying to undermine her leadership and political capacity, while inviting me to join them. I rejected his approach and stood clearly in solidarity with her.

This is just a small example of the divide-and-rule tactics commonly used by the Myanmar military. These tactics and the military-dominated process severely limited leverage and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, sidelining anyone seen as too challenging. In essence, the root causes of the conflict: the Myanmar military and its entrenched culture of Burmanization, the discrimination of ethnic nationality groups in matters of culture, education, language and religion, were never addressed. Thus, from their inception, such processes were never going to lead to sustainable peace.

The idea of bringing the ‘two conflicting parties’ together, with the Myanmar military on one side and revolutionary forces on the other, is deeply problematic. First, the assumption that the Myanmar military will be part of the power structure moving forward undermines the people’s aspiration, immense sacrifices and efforts to build a new, peaceful Myanmar.

Second, it denies the realities on the ground, where existing localized administrations are being strengthened in ethnic nationality homelands, and new ones developed in central areas. Third, the revolutionary forces, while building alliances and collaboration, are not a single party with a unified platform. Pressure into negotiations precludes the necessary inclusive processes that allow the time for genuine consultation with affected communities to explore what the transition to new governance can and will look like.

Over the past decades, the Myanmar military has coerced or forced EAOs to sign countless ceasefire agreements, and then unilaterally broken those agreements with increased militarization and violence against ethnic communities, grabbing their ancestral land, robbing natural resources, and committing sexual violence against women. This has led to immense human suffering, with tens of thousands of lives lost, and millions displaced internally or across the borders as refugees.

These ceasefire (or so-called peace) agreements had one thing in common: none of the actors recognized or created space for conflict-affected communities, for women and youth from the ground, to join the negotiation and decision-making process as stakeholders, or to raise their voice for justice and accountability. How can any peace agreement be sustainable without full and meaningful participation and decision-making by affected communities from the grassroots?

I remember when the WLB published a report on military rape in 2014, a leading peace donor who claims to be a champion of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, withdrew its initial pledge to provide WLB an international advocacy platform for the report, saying this would disturb the peace process. This was not a unique experience. Other women’s groups had donors try to silence their advocacy against the military’s violence and for justice and accountability.

I also vividly remember the experience at a women’s dialogue when I raised the issue of Myanmar military’s use of rape and sexual violence against ethnic women. As I spoke of the need for women from all backgrounds to look into this matter to deepen understanding and build solidarity, the organizers tried to stop me while the Myanmar military generals’ wives in attendance accused me of being a “peace spoiler” and attempted to justify the rapists’ actions.

This experience taught me a lesson that as women activists, we must ensure that the women, peace and security agenda is truly and effectively driven by women from the ground, especially those who are survivors and from affected communities. Women leaders must facilitate the process to support women rooted in the communities affected by the war to be integral to the decision-making processes.

I propose a Women of Burma/Myanmar’s Peace Agenda developed and led in implementation by grassroots women, with the facilitation and support of local women organizations and women leaders. There is a need for a women’s peace movement. That is the only way to make the women, peace and security agenda truly and effectively driven by women from the ground.

Today we have an opportunity to take a new course toward peace.

Now is the time for us to go beyond the armed conflicting parties, and bring together communities: grassroots peacebuilders, the change agents, civil society, environmental activists, women’s rights activists, and human rights defenders from all communities to be part of the decision-making of the revolution’s political processes to determine the future of new federal democratic Myanmar.

While of course you can’t have thousands of people in one room to make decisions, people can take part in inclusive, meaningful community-based consultation processes, elect or delegate their representatives and provide input through their representatives. To their credit, some of the ethnic communities attempted some consultations with stakeholders from the ground more than 10 years ago during the peace negotiations, for example the Shan and the Karen, among others.

But the Myanmar military blocked their efforts. In the current revolution, it is essential to organize grassroots communities to analyze and plan together: to discuss bottom-up power-sharing and governance arrangements among the diverse communities of Myanmar. In other words, we need people-to-people and community-to-community dialogues to be an integral part of any genuine peace building process.

Certainly, the resistance parties coming together to completely topple the military and state structures in, and command from, Naypyidaw must be the first priority for the revolution.  Each revolutionary force, especially the EAOs, claiming and reclaiming their own territories and establishing and strengthening governance and administration, is essential and critical.

However, for the long term viability, the central military system must be dismantled. This will of course create a power vacuum in Naypyidaw, which is the primary reason the international actors are pressuring the revolutionary forces to negotiate with the military and join its illegal sham election tentatively scheduled for next year.

But that logic replays old mistakes and misses the opportunity for building a genuine new order of peace and stability. The power vacuum in Naypyidaw can be filled in with an agreement on a transitional arrangement of power-sharing, with administrative authority by the revolutionary forces.

However, there is another urgent priority to tackle that is sensitive: the presumption of a return to ethnic Bamar majority control over the Myanmar state. This revolution has the potential to finally level the playing field to establish a federal system among equals, with the Bamar as one ethnic group among many. It requires first the complete dismantling of the Myanmar military as an institution and its entrenched Burmanized central system. It also requires the recognition among ourselves that ethnic Bamar leadership is speaking for the needs and visions of the Bamar ethnic communities, with realization, recognition and acceptance that their majority status cannot represent everyone.

This is a stumbling block in strategic and unified planning for the transitional authority for a new federal democratic Myanmar. The NLD and the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) could help build trust with the EAOs and non-Bamar ethnic communities by publicly stating that this revolution is not a return to ethnic Bamar domination or control over politics. They could also make it clear that they do not intend to assume power after the revolution, based on the 2020 election results. They could commit to move forward with a transitional process that ensures equal representation of diverse communities for a genuine federal democracy.

There must be support of inter- and intra-ethnic dialogues, but with the exclusion of the military, for long term sustainable solutions. An inclusive and decentralized approach that includes all opposition stakeholders is far more likely to lead to sustainable peace and a unified coming-together than any process devised by the military junta, further entrenching their divide and rule strategy. True political courage is needed for this critical shift to achieve genuine and durable peace for all communities.

Now is also the time for the international community to fully support Myanmar’s home-grown and locally-led genuine peacebuilding initiatives and efforts in this people’s revolution, to lay the foundations for a transitional governing process and to build a new Myanmar.

I was recently asked at a conference by a Western diplomat if the EAOs and the People’s Defense Forces (PDFs) are complying with International Humanitarian Law. I acknowledged the efforts by some revolutionary forces to comply with IHL, and I also did not shy away from voicing my concern over cases of grave human rights violations committed by some revolutionary forces.

Then I asked the diplomat, but what is the U.N. and the international community doing to help these revolutionary forces comply with IHL effectively? Are you providing technical assistance, resources to help them ensure their compliance? The blanket statement that “all sides commit crimes” in conflict fails to acknowledge the unprecedented violence and scale of the atrocities committed for decades by the Myanmar military to the entire population. Unlike the Myanmar military, the EAOs and the PDFs are approachable, and many are making efforts to do the right thing. Now is the time to ensure they have the support they need to do so.

It is also critical that the U.N. Special Envoy for Myanmar Julie Bishop consider carefully the potential implications of her recommendations to the upcoming U.N. General Assembly (UNGA). Bishop’s predecessors have never been successful in any kind of resolution, most notably because their approaches placed the Myanmar military at the center of any solution, instead of the people.

There is also no clear mandate for Bishop to address Myanmar’s nationwide political violence. Since the previous envoy, we have advocated for the mandate to be amended to include justice, accountability and civilian protection. Bishop should demand an amendment to the mandate by the UNGA, allowing her to effectively address the crisis, including to tackle the root causes of the crisis and support peoples’ aspiration for a new federal democratic Myanmar. It is extremely important that Bishop acknowledges and assures the people that the military in Myanmar has no place in future governance of the country.

Neighboring countries, in particular, should support Myanmar’s peoples, because dismantling the Myanmar military is in the best interest of peace and stability for the whole region. ASEAN must move beyond its failed Five-Point Consensus and formally engage with the stakeholders of the Revolution. In particular, China must stop its aggression and threat toward the Myanmar peoples’ revolution. In a new shift of dynamics, China is for the first time publicly backing the work of the new U.N. Special Envoy for Myanmar. It feels clear China assumes that a U.N. endorsement will be part of its process that will lead to solving the Myanmar crisis through elections that include the military junta. China’s current support for Bishop makes this call for a mandate change all the more urgent.

The Myanmar military has repeatedly demonstrated that they have absolutely no political will for peace. The international community has never fully understood their backing of the Myanmar military’s continued presence in the country’s central system as reinforcing and further entrenching ethnic Bamar control of power and systemic repression and persecution against non-Bamar and non-Buddhist communities. This must change. The international community must change their approach and support the revolution in their efforts to rebuild Myanmar by establishing transitional governance, devoid of the Myanmar military and its state structures, not determined by them.

The best way to ensure peace is to ensure Myanmar state’s legitimate multiple actors – the NUG, EAOs, and diverse sectors of civil society and communities – have the safe and enabling space and resources for stakeholder consultations, people-to-people and community-to-community dialogues, strategizing and planning for the political transition and federal union. Thailand will be key to support and accommodate these spaces, in terms of accessibility, and this will be the most effective way for Thailand to show its leadership in ASEAN and its genuine support to its neighbor.

The people of Myanmar desperately want peace, the assurance of human security and livelihood, and an end to military rule and oppression. To mark this International Day of Peace and to honour the legacy of Padoh Naw Zipporah Sein, let us commit to genuine peacebuilding – not with quick-fix solutions that make us compromise on principles of human rights, accountability and justice; but with a genuine and courageous commitment to ensure consultation with, and representation by, all the diverse peoples’ of Myanmar.

*Thramu and Sayama are Karen and Burmese honorifics meaning teacher. They are used interchangeably throughout. 

Khin Ohmar is a Myanmar human rights activist who was involved in organizing the 1988 nationwide pro-democracy uprising. She is also the founder of Progressive Voice, a Myanmar human rights organization.

Original post