Myanmar Spring Chronicle – June 18 View
(MoeMaKa, June 19, 2025):
NUCC Welcomes Formation of the Ta’ang Land Council Amid Complex Shan State Dynamics
Following the official announcement on June 9 of the establishment of the Ta’ang Land Council (TLC), the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) issued a statement welcoming the move and expressing support for the creation of the TLC.
The NUCC, formed early in the Spring Revolution, is a collective political structure representing five major political sectors. It is widely understood to function as a policy-making and coordinating body supporting the National Unity Government (NUG). It includes representatives from:
-
The CRPH (formed by 2020-elected MPs)
-
Political parties
-
Civil society groups
-
Women’s organizations
-
Youth and ethnic minority networks
-
Strike committees
-
Interim state/federal units or councils
The Ta’ang Political Consultative Council (TPCC) was already a member of the NUCC. With the creation of the new TLC, the NUCC stated that the TLC would now assume the TPCC’s place as the formal representative of the Ta’ang region within the council.
Although the NUCC is meant to be a comprehensive alliance representing all Bamar and ethnic political forces, in reality, not all major ethnic groups are part of it. Groups representing the Shan, Rakhine, Kachin, Karen, Pa-O, Lahu, and others have not yet joined. The NUCC has acknowledged that some members have withheld their identities due to security concerns, but the full extent of ethnic inclusion remains unclear.
By highlighting this, the article seeks to draw attention to the NUCC’s representational limitations. While some welcomed the announcement of the TLC, others voiced concern and criticism—particularly regarding how the move may affect Shan State’s complex political dynamics.
One Shan political analyst, commenting under the NUCC’s public statement, warned that the NUCC has committed a serious policy mistake by ignoring the autonomy and self-determination rights of the Shan majority under the federal Shan State framework. The analyst argued that the TLC’s formation contradicts the established positions of key Shan organizations like SSPP, RCSS, SNLD, and the Committee for Shan State Unity (CSSU).
The CSSU advocates for a “Federated Shan State,” where diverse ethnic groups co-govern under a non-centralized federal system. Critics say the TLC’s formation under TNLA’s control violates that principle.
Before the TLC’s formation, other ethnic interim governance bodies had already emerged—such as the Karenni Interim Executive Council and the Chinland Council. This raises the question: why is the TLC drawing more criticism than others?
The answer lies in Shan State’s unique complexity—its deep history, ethnic diversity, and ongoing territorial disputes. Critics argue that NUCC must recognize the distinct dynamics of Shan State, including the overlapping territorial claims and intergroup tensions.
Concerns have been raised over whether the TLC will now govern all areas captured by TNLA during the Operation 1027 offensive, and whether that amounts to a de facto declaration of TNLA-administered Ta’ang territory.
Meanwhile, tensions between TNLA and KIA have grown over disputed areas in Kutkai and Namhpakka, with armed clashes reported in recent months. Separately, the MNDAA and SSPP/SSA also exchanged fire recently, prompting emergency dialogue among the top leaders of all three Brotherhood Alliance groups.
After Operation 1027, the territorial control in Shan State has drastically shifted, especially in the north, where MNDAA and TNLA seized large areas and began governing them. But this has also sparked friction with other ethnic communities within those territories, especially over taxation and forced conscription.
In a state as ethnically diverse as Shan—where different groups have coexisted for centuries—the question is not just who holds power militarily, but whether governance can reflect political legitimacy and historical context. Long-term peace will require consultative, inclusive governance models, not just armed control.
Any future built on military dominance—whether by Bamar-led forces or ethnic armed groups—will only recreate cycles of conflict. True federalism must be grounded in history, consent, and coexistence, not just firepower or claims of revolution.