Myanmar Spring Chronicle – October 11, Scene
(MoeMaKa) October 12, 2024
Myanmar’s Situation with Different Goals
Looking at Myanmar’s current armed conflict, or civil war, it’s clear that the goals of the various armed groups involved are not uniform. The military junta, some border guard forces, the People’s Army, and ethnic armed organizations are on one side. On the other side, other ethnic armed groups, the People’s Defense Forces (PDF) under the National Unity Government (NUG), and PDFs formed at regional, city, and village levels not under NUG’s command have been engaged in fighting, guerilla warfare, and airstrikes for over three to four years now.
The general objective of these groups, collectively referred to as part of the Spring Revolution, is to defeat the military, which has dominated Myanmar’s politics for decades, reclaim territories, and manage resources and taxes in their regions. In some areas, more than one ethnic armed group operates, while in regions predominantly inhabited by the Bamar ethnic majority, such as Sagaing, Mandalay, Bago, and Magway, various PDF groups are actively organizing.
While these groups share a common goal of defeating the military, questions arise regarding what kind of country or political system they will create once they gain control of their territories. Will they form autonomous regions, confederate states, or something else? Have they considered the territorial boundaries or how to resolve disputes if disagreements arise? These questions still remain.
In general, the NUG is expected to play a leading role, and ethnic regions will likely form their own administrative bodies, resulting in a federal democratic union. However, it is challenging to predict whether this structure will develop uniformly across all regions once the military is entirely defeated, given the current circumstances. Differences in political goals and territorial claims are linked to ethnic and regional interests, and conflicts between ethnic and Bamar-majority areas could potentially escalate into armed confrontations.
After more than seven decades of military involvement in politics, the possibility of conflict over interests and boundaries post-victory could arise. Therefore, discussions and agreements to resolve such issues through dialogue, rather than armed conflict, will be necessary.
In late 2023 and mid-2024, intense battles to capture towns, territories, and military bases took place in northern Shan and its surrounding regions. It remains to be seen whether ethnic armed groups will agree on a division of power and governance in the territories they have captured.
These are issues considered from the perspective of the armed groups. Regarding Myanmar’s crisis, two main approaches are seen from neighboring and powerful countries. One approach focuses on ceasefire and stability, while the other emphasizes halting armed conflict and seeking solutions through negotiations involving all parties. China supports the first approach, prioritizing ceasefire, while ASEAN and Western countries advocate for the second, emphasizing negotiations among all involved.
These represent the interests and desires of some international governments. Inside Myanmar, some groups maintain a firm stance on the complete removal of the military council, while others demand the total exit of the military from politics.
At this point, it is worth considering whether the armed and political groups are taking into account the desires of the people. For the people, their main concern is survival—escaping the dangers of war, and overcoming the hardships of food shortages and lack of access to medical care. It’s an important question: who among the armed and political groups is listening to the people’s voices during this civil war? If given the choice, what would the people choose right now? The general answer would likely be that ordinary people would choose to survive another day.