CONTESTING TERRITORIES: The need for a balanced approach

With the conclusion of the Union Peace Conference-21st Century Panglong on 3 September 2015, it became even clearer that the path towards peace and a general union is problematic. While the conference was generally lauded as bringing all stakeholders closer together, it has further highlighted the many serious issues the government faces in creating a Federal Union that everyone can accept.

Myanmar lists 135 ethnic groups including eight major groups – the majority Burman, Shan, Karen, Chin, Karenni, Rakhine, Mon, and Kachin. With the exception of the Burman, all major groups are recognised as having state level recognition. After the failure of the government to fully institute promises made at Panglong in 1947 and in the 1948 constitution (See EBO Background Paper No.3/2016 – The 21st Century Panglong Conference) a federalism movement sprang up in 1961.

The Federalism movement saw Aung San’s promise of ‘If a Bamar receives one kyat, you will also receive one kyat.’ as the basis of equality for every ethnic group and as such it was seen by ethnic leaders that a Burman, or Bamar, state was necessary to bring true equality to the Union. Although the federalism movement was crushed in 1962 by Ne Win, who feared that calls for federalism meant secession from the Union, ethnic leaders still see federalism envisioned through Panglong as the way forward.

While most recent calls from armed ethnic groups have seen promises of no secession, how a future federal union can be realised is a major concern. Current calls, especially by the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), to reinterpret the country’s current arrangement of seven states and seven regions in favour of eight states for the main ethnic nationalities and separate or nationalities states for those with mixed ethnic groups is likely to further delay the pace of progress in the peace process.

While federalism, possibly using the Indian model, is one of the main issues being debated. In a country with such a diversity of population, the fact that many ethnic states have numerous ethnic sub-groups all of whom will demand equal rights will cause further ethnic tensions. Such a problem has already been seen in recent clashes between the Palaung State Liberation Front/Ta’ang National

Liberation Army (PSLF/TNLA) and the Restoration Council of Shan State/Shan State Army – South (RCSS/SSA-S) over territorial control.

The conflict between the RCSS/SSA-S and PSLF/TNLA erupted in Shan State on 27 November 2015 in

Namhkam and Manton townships, near the China border. Reports from the Ta’ang claim that members of the SSA-S had crossed into their areas, which they designate as Kyaukme, Namhsan,

Manton and Namkham Townships, without seeking ‘permission’.1

The main problem in relation to the conflict is area of operation. As can be seen by the 2008 Constitution only two townships, Manton and Namhsan, are designated as being Palaung governed territory, however, the PSLF maintains that the Palaung should be able to control the additional two townships as the Palaung are present in the other two areas. However, this is disputed and it is believed, for example, that a large majority of the people in Namkham are Shan and Kachin with a much smaller Palaung presence.

Download PDF file : EBO Background Paper No. 4/2016 – Contesting Territories