Myanmar peace process: Chasm opens up between talk and action 

Some members are even saying that they might sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA).
The problem with this is that agreeing “in principle” means nothing. The nine points have to be IMPLEMENTED, which will never happen, hence the UNFC members should never sign the NCA. The nine points are:
1. Bilateral ceasefire agreement between the government-military and the UNFC.
2. To build a federal union with result achieved from the 21st Century Panglong Conference.
3. Agreement of tripartite dialogue composition.
4. Drafting and promulgation of constitutional law based on the outcome of the new Panglong Conference.
5. Advance agreement on military codes of conduct and monitoring on terms of reference.
6. Formation of military Joint Monitoring Committee with representatives from government, ethnic armed organisations and international figures acceptable to both parties.
7. Formation of a neutral, enforcement tribunal for NCA involving domestic and international law experts and judges that are acceptable to both parties.
8. Developmental projects to be tackled according to Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), in cooperation with the public and the ethnic armed organisations.
9. Signing of the NCA after the above points are in agreement.
(Source: UNFC Statement – December 13, 2016.)
Point 1 is to declare an actual on-the-ground ceasefire, which the
military dictatorship will never do. What the hell is going on? Why are the UNFC members acting like there is progress, when for the only party that matters – Myanmar’s military – there is none? 
If they are just “negotiating”, trying to be nice, that’s one thing. But the alliance members should never sign anything until an agreement that truly protects their peoples, the ethnic nationalities of Myanmar, is achieved.
Roland Watson