This review (originally in Burmese) appeared on 23 January, a week after the Union Peace Conference #1 was successfully held in Naypyitaw, 12-15 January. The author is Dr Sai Oo, country representative, of the Pyidaungsu Institute (PI) for Peace and Dialogue, who is based in Rangoon. Comments by participants at the review meeting are added by SHAN.

The conference was opened by key leaders of the country: President Thein Sein, Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing and the November elections winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and attended by diplomats and observers from the UN, Japan and China, among them, thereby lending the much needed credibility to the controversial Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) that was signed almost 3 months earlier. Their presence had also helped boost legitimacy to the ongoing peace process.

Among the more than 1,000 other participants were young military officers, 15 from each of the 10 military regions in the non-Burman ethnic areas of the country. Listening to their presentation, one can easily surmise they had done their homework on federalism before joining the conference.

Here are some of the selected lines from their discussions:

• Federalism is not secession
• Federal countries prosper
• The Tatmadaw (military) is pro-change
• Federalism distributes power between the central and states, and there are two legislative houses
• States have separate powers and the central cannot interfere with state powers
• States have the right to exercise 3 sovereign powers
• States have the right of self determination

At the same time, there are other statements made by them that may not be so reassuring:

• A centralized federalism
• No separate constitutions for states
• Interchangeable use of “right of self determination” and “autonomy” as though they were identical
• Opposition to ethnic-based states, expressing preference to geographical-based states (“Then they should get rid of ‘Myanmar’ first, which is but a synonym to ‘Bamar’,” exclaimed a participant)

Other than that, there are three things that will serve as reminders that the federalism issue is not going to be plain sailing:

• The fact that military officers, in the end, must obey orders even if they don’t like them
• The fact that the military is the real power behind the throne in every ministry and from the top to the bottom in the country’s different administrative levels through its General Administration Department (GAD)
• Insistence by the commander-in-chief and his lieutenants of the “one country, one military” principle in opposition to the Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs)’ equally insistent demand to have state defense forces at least until mutual trust is attained
• Moreover, although other dialogue topics like ‘land and natural resources management’ should logically be part and parcel of federalism, military representatives had entered the deliberations as if they had nothing to do with federalism

On the EAOs side, they appeared to be stronger on federalism during the conference. Nothing surprising because they have been at it for decades and some for more than half a century. Unfortunately they seemed to have joined the conference without prior consultation and agreement. The result was precious time being spent on a debate among themselves on establishment of new states, that could only serve in the interests of the government and the military. “Besides, what’s the use of having new states, when even old states are states only in name?” one reviewer asked rhetorically. “We also need to consider the possibility of some of our neighbors taking advantage of the matter.”

Dr Sai Oo concludes his preliminary analysis with the following suggestions:

• Intensive public consultations in order to produce a common stand (“The 1960-62 federal movement failed in part because the people in general were ignorant about it,” commented a lawyer)
• Equally intensive capacity-building programs (Federal study trips to countries such as India, Germany, Switzerland and others plus at least 2 seminars and workshops for each dialogue topics)
• Study trips to other states and regions
• Encouraging more participation by youth (“And women,” said a female participant. “Don’t forget women.”)

“We still have a maximum of 5 more years, with 3 Union Peace Conferences per year, if the peace process goes according to the resolution on the last day of UPC#1,” said a participant. “That should be sufficient time for our people to shape their own destiny.”

I do hope he’s right.

The author is President and Co-founder of the Shan Herald Agency for News (SHAN). He is also serving as Managing Director for the Pyidaungsu Institute (PI) for Peace and Dialogue, which has offices both in Chiangmai and Yangon/Rangoon.