Burma has already been a Cold War battlefield between 1948-1989, which had cost the country tremendous loss in both properties and lives.

It took us two decades plus more to realize the folly in order to launch a peace process 4 years ago which, despite all the obstacles that we have erected by ourselves between us, is still ongoing.

At present, we might say that the process is undergoing a bumpy period even without interference from our “friends.” But when they are “advising” about what we should do and what we should not, things get more complicated as they were during the Cold War.

One friend plays a subtle game. He is a long time foe to the country’s rulers, who has since 2011 become a friend. As years go by, one can’t help but notice that he is becoming more than a friend to our rulers, while at the same time less of it to the non-Burman underdogs. He has been urging the armed resistance movements to sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) whether or not it leaves out some of the movements. What he should have done instead is tell the government to make it inclusive.

In the meanwhile, there is the other friend who is not shy about telling us what he wants:

• On 5 October 2011, there was a murder in cold blood of 13 sailors who were members of the friend’s family on the Mekong. Ambassadors of Burma, Laos and Thailand were then unceremoniously summoned and “asked” to speed up their probe into the killing. The friend’s spokesman himself conceded afterward that his minister “was not completely diplomatic.”

• Less than two years later in February 2013, there was a meeting between representatives from the government and the armed resistance movements which was hosted by the friend. Everything went right until the draft agreement was read out. Then the friend demanded that some of the draft’s wordings and substance be changed because he didn’t like it, which both surprised and dismayed negotiators on both sides.

• The latest, but probably not final, straw was when the friend started to insist, both directly and through intermediaries, that we see to it that the other friend is not meddling in our internal affairs.

What it amounts to is that our big friend is telling us only he, and not others, has the right and privilege to have a say in everything we do.

This is simply a demand that our country’s rulers and leaders of the armed resistance movements should not comply. Not because we like the other friend better. But because we want peace, not only among ourselves, but with all our neighbors, far and near.

Moreover complying to this friends’ demand is most likely not going to end the problem. Because more demands will follow until we are completely gobbled up by the friend.

What we all should do instead is that both friends allow us to sort out our differences by ourselves and then support us in whatever agreement we have reached. Burma, being a small country and jammed between big power friends is certainly not going to decide anything that is harmful to anyone of them. Because, no matter how strong and modern our Tatmadaw is, the country and its peoples can only live in peace only if they are friends to all their neighbors, both far and near.