What Aung Naing Oo pointed out is most crucial to the continuation of peace process dialogue.

His suggestion of “Unnecessary restrictions must also be removed. Flexibility must be prioritized. Negotiators must be provided with proper policy direction and communication,” or key words like “restriction, flexibility,and communication” are most important to keep the process going.

In plain words, for example the issue of “restriction”, like Paragraph 17/1, Association with Illegal Organizations Act that could cause personal security concern for the ethnic resistance leaders should be waived, if not abolished it all. The detention of one All Burma Student Democratic Front (ABSDF) leader, whose party is a signatory of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), is still detained with the Burma Army initiative, is the case in point. In the same vein, a dozen or so soldiers of Ararkan Liberation Party (ALP), also an NCA signatory are detained and their weapons confiscated, citing trespassing their designated areas, and still are under detention.

“Flexibility” in this period of ongoing peace process should mean looking the other way or turn a blind eye for the sake of a bigger picture or goal-setting. In this case, it is the achievement of the political settlement through negotiations. The Tatmadaw is just doing the opposite, by imposing its own rule of being a sole protector of the national sovereignty, when in fact this is the very notion that has been the bone of contention for adversaries and all parties involved in the peace process.

It should be clear that while the Tatmadaw wants to be the sole owner of the country’s sovereignty, the ethnic nationalities see it as their ultimate goal to wrestle it back, in the form of a “shared-sovereignty”. It is a political demand and they are risking their lives so that the political equation is changed into a form of federal union system of governance. In other words, this should be negotiated at the peace conference and not already taken for granted by the Tatmadaw, as it is now doing and acting with implementation that isn’t helping the peace process to be fruitful at all.

Regarding “communication”, especially with concern to JMC or ceasefire joint-monitoring procedure, it is not at all working, seen from several firefights with the Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS) or the Shan State army – South, which is also an NCA signatory.

All in all, it is the “political will” and sincerity that is badly needed from the part of the Tatmadaw to end its offensive wars in Kachin and Shan States, in the name of safeguarding the country’s sovereignty, and come down from its moral high horse of being the sole protector and owner of the national sovereignty and national unity, using sheer military might, which has failed to work, after employing the said policy for decades.

Link to the story : http://frontiermyanmar.net/en/dialogue-or-despair-two-futures-for-the-peace-process