Myanmar Spring Chronicle – January 12 (Perspective)
“Inter-ethnic Conflict and Myanmar’s Decades-long Civil War”
The Kokang ethnic armed organization known by the acronym MNDAA announced that January 5 would be designated as the Restoration Day of Special Region (1), and declared that Special Region (1) consists of four districts and one capital city.
The four districts included in Kokang Special Region (1) are Kutkai, Hseni, Mongkoe, and Laukkai, with Laukkai designated as the capital city. Among the territories declared under this arrangement are areas in Kutkai that are currently controlled by the TNLA, though the exact boundaries have not been made clear. This district-level declaration has raised concerns regarding territorial ownership in northern Shan State, a region inhabited by many ethnic groups. For example, some Kachin and Shan political figures have criticized the inclusion of Kutkai, an area inhabited by Kachin people and regarded as part of a Kachin sub-state, into Kokang Special Region (1), warning that it could trigger inter-ethnic conflicts.
Similar to the MNDAA, the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) announced in August last year the formation of the Ta’ang Land Council (TLC) and declared TNLA-controlled areas as Ta’ang Land. According to a report by ISP Myanmar, five townships under TLC administration overlap with areas administered by the KIO. A few months after announcing the formation of the Ta’ang Land Council, the TNLA signed a ceasefire agreement with the military, under which Mogok and Momeik were handed back. Prior to the ceasefire, clashes between the TNLA and the military resulted in the loss of Nawnghkio, Kyaukme, and Hsipaw.
The instability of territorial demarcations caused by ground fighting and airstrikes may have been one of the reasons leading to the ceasefire agreement.
At this point, the administrative and territorial declarations by the TNLA and MNDAA have raised concerns among other ethnic groups living in the region. Following Operation 1027, frictions have emerged among armed groups over checkpoint inspections, transit permissions, and territorial crossings, leading to strained relations and growing tensions between armed organizations.
One of the fundamental causes of Myanmar’s nearly eight-decade-long civil war has been the demand for self-determination by ethnic groups. Conflicts between different ethnic groups, or between the ethnic majority-dominated central government and minority regions, over issues such as language rights, cultural preservation, economic opportunities, natural resources, and equal development, have all contributed to the outbreak of civil war. During this prolonged conflict, inter-ethnic disputes did occur and were not entirely absent.
Before the 1988 Four-Eights Uprising, there were historical incidents of fighting between the New Mon State Party and the KNU in the Three Pagodas Pass area. Similar conflicts also occurred among other ethnic armed organizations. However, in recent decades, large-scale conflicts of this kind had been relatively rare. After Operation 1027, major shifts in territorial control took place, and inter-ethnic armed conflicts began to re-emerge.
In recent months and years, although there have been no clear statements that newly seized territories and administrative authority are permanent, actions such as establishing administrations and changing languages and symbols on village and town signboards give the impression that the current conflict may be laying the groundwork for future conflicts.
There are several possible approaches to defining territorial boundaries: based on population ratios, historical claims, or through free and fair referendums reflecting the will of local residents. Population-based approaches are criticized due to historical patterns of migration. If historical criteria are used instead, disputes arise over which era should serve as the reference point.
At present, the reality appears to be that armed groups seize and control territory through military strength, then enter negotiations and bargaining with other organizations from a position of advantage.
When discussing inter-ethnic conflict, key concepts include self-determination, self-governance, equality, fair resource sharing, language and cultural rights, federalism, ethnic chauvinism, extreme nationalism, and equitable power-sharing.
If the goal is to build a peaceful and equal nation, it will require genuine federalism, non-extreme nationalism, equal access to natural resources, and a focus on democracy, human rights, and equitable development rather than narrow ethnic nationalism. Only by moving in this direction can a truly peaceful state be built for the future.
Write to Maung May