Myanmar’s faltering peace process

Four weeks ago, the United Wa State Army (UWSA), dubbed the world’s largest drug trafficking army, met with leaders from seven ethnic armed groups in Panghsang, the de fato capital of the autonomous Wa State near the Chinese border in Yunnan province, to discuss their future.
The group, part of the so-called Northern Alliance, established the Union Political Negotiation Dialogue Committee (UPNDC) to serve as the forum to raise their case with Myanmar, not with the government of Aung San Suu Kyi but directly with the Tadmadaw, the powerful military which actually runs the country.
Effectively, the UWSA was saying they would rather deal with somebody who can deliver on the promises. It was a slap on the face of  Suu Kyi and her civilian government’s 21st Century Panglong Conference, a forum where all armed ethnic groups can come together to talk about peace. The Panglong Conference is also supported by the international community.
UWSA, one the foot soldiers of the now defunct Communist Party of Burma (CPB), is backed by China. Communist insurgency ended in 1989 but friendship is forever in this part of the world where ethnic armies, opium warlords and state/non-state actors play for keeps.
Officially, the Tadmadaw supports the current civilian-driven dialogue process. But deep within, these generals are feeling the pinch from China whose support for the UWSA and its allies directly undermine the Myanmar government’s peace initiative.
The 21st Century Panglong Conference convened its first meeting in August 2016. The initiative was a continuation of the 2015 Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) that was supposed to be the legacy of former president Thein Sein. The intention of the new Panglong forum was supposed to be more open and inclusive. 
But powerful groups like UWSA and Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and the rest of the Northern Alliance members are not interested in inclusivity. They want to know what’s in it for them. They want the military to deal with them directly and they want the Wa and the Chinese to play an active role in their peace process. In some way, they taught Suu Kyi a very important lesson – that textbook diplomacy doesn’t work around here where so much blood has already been spilled and opportunity lost because of decades of fighting. 
This is not to say that the Northern Alliance didn’t give Nay Pyi Taw a chance. In fact, it’s more than a year since Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy won the election and still, there isn’t much to show in terms of progress in the peace process. 
For the Wa, who see themselves as deserving better treatment and entitlement, sitting down with so many groups and international players at one forum undermines their importance. After all, the Wa sees themselves as a force to be reckoned with and they have the firepower and backers across the border.
They are reminded of the old days when the Tadmadaw would employ the divide-and-conquer tactic against the ethnic groups. Today, they are coming together to enhance their bargaining power. 
One can point the finger at China and highlight their insincerity. On on the one hand, Beijing has said it supports Suu Kyi’s initiative and wants to see peace along the Sino-Burma border and on the other, its cross-border support for groups like the UWSA continues unabated. 
Clashes between Tadmadaw and some of the northern ethnic armies have sent thousands of refugees into China. And the harder the Tadmadaw attack, the easier it becomes for these ethnic armed groups to justify distancing themselves from the current process. 
As the de facto head of government, Suu Kyi is obliged to defend the integrity of her country. But supporting her country’s integrity doesn’t mean being silent about the atrocities committed on the ground. The Tadmadaw’s behaviour in these rugged hills over much of the five decades or so constitutes a crime against humanity. 
This is not to absolve the Wa and their friends. It’s not clear if the Wa-led initiative will produce traction. But one can say that it reflects the reality of their battlefield. 
If Nay Pyi Taw cannot achieve something comprehensive, perhaps Suu Kyi wants to consider something less comprehensive, tailored to the needs of the groups – individually and/or collectively.