{"id":6994,"date":"2025-07-24T05:00:19","date_gmt":"2025-07-23T22:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/moemaka.net\/eng\/?p=6994"},"modified":"2025-07-24T05:00:22","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T22:30:22","slug":"peace-ceasefire-and-total-victory-three-distinct-paths","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/moemaka.net\/eng\/2025\/07\/peace-ceasefire-and-total-victory-three-distinct-paths\/","title":{"rendered":"Peace, Ceasefire and Total Victory \u2013 Three Distinct Paths"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Myanmar Spring Chronicle \u2013 July 22 Viewpoint<\/strong>
(MoeMaKa, July 23, 2025)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Peace, Ceasefire and Total Victory \u2013 Three Distinct Paths<\/h3>\n

The terms \u201cpeace<\/strong>, ceasefire<\/strong>, and total victory<\/strong>\u201d are often used in the context of Myanmar\u2019s civil war, but each carries very different meanings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Peace<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The term peace<\/em> implies more than the mere absence of war. Some definitions describe it as a condition of harmony, justice, and coexistence<\/strong>, while others define it more narrowly as a lack of active conflict or violence<\/strong>. Peace can refer to a situation where there is no war, no unrest, and no confrontation between parties within a country or society.<\/p>\n

By that definition, Myanmar\u2019s current situation<\/strong>\u2014marked by ongoing armed conflict, widespread violence, injustice, and instability\u2014is nowhere close<\/strong> to peace. The country is entrenched in turmoil, and thus, \u201cpeace\u201d remains an inapplicable<\/strong> term.<\/p>\n

Ceasefire<\/strong><\/h4>\n

A ceasefire<\/em>, in contrast, is not peace<\/strong>. It is a temporary suspension of hostilities<\/strong>, often agreed upon by warring factions. Ceasefires do not imply reconciliation, justice, or mutual understanding<\/strong>. Resentments may remain, protests may persist, and grievances may go unaddressed. A ceasefire can exist in the absence of peace<\/strong> and without fulfilling calls for accountability or reparations.<\/p>\n

Total Victory<\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cTotal victory<\/em>\u201d is the most clear-cut of the three. It denotes the complete defeat of one party by another<\/strong>, typically in armed conflict. In Myanmar\u2019s case, it implies that one side\u2014the junta or resistance\u2014seeks to utterly eliminate<\/strong> the opposing side.<\/p>\n

\n

Myanmar\u2019s ongoing conflict arguably involves all three terms<\/strong>, depending on the actor and their narrative.<\/p>\n

Some militarily dominant forces may invoke terms like \u201cpeace\u201d or \u201cceasefire\u201d as rhetorical tools<\/strong>, while their real intent is to secure complete military victory<\/strong>. These words can serve as strategic pauses or public relations tactics<\/strong>, used to deflect scrutiny or exhaustion from the general population.<\/p>\n

For example, when one group has captured more territory than expected<\/strong>, it might begin to promote \u201cpeace\u201d or \u201cceasefire\u201d in name only<\/strong>, while consolidating control and imposing governance on the population\u2014often including taxation and resource extraction. The human cost<\/strong>\u2014in lives lost, displacement, or destruction of property\u2014is rarely acknowledged by those pursuing military advantage.<\/p>\n

The resistance groups<\/strong>, especially some ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), have over the last two years reached such positions of control<\/strong> that they may now begin to use the language of \u201cceasefire\u201d strategically. Whether they account for civilian suffering or not, these groups might prefer pause and entrenchment over continued combat<\/strong> once their military objectives are secured.<\/p>\n

The number of combatants killed or wounded<\/strong>, and the scale of civilian suffering<\/strong>, often go unacknowledged until long after the battles end. These costs may only come to light through future historical documentation.<\/p>\n

\n

Despite the commonly stated goal that the military junta is the shared enemy<\/strong>, real-time developments show that conflicts of interest between resistance groups themselves<\/strong> are emerging. These rivalries have the potential to create new fronts and new enemies<\/strong>, undermining unity.<\/p>\n

This leads to further questions:<\/p>\n