An interview with Naing Banyar Mon, ethnic political analyst.
May 26th, 2022
The KIC interviewed Naing Banyar Mon, ethnic political analyst and Director of the Mon State Development Center about the military council’s main purpose of inviting the Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) to the peace talk, the interest of some EAOs which met with the military chief and the reviews on the results which came out after the meeting.
Q: May I know the main purpose of the military chief’s invitation of the EAOs to the peace talk?
A: I think this is the military council’s building political advantage and conduct offensive in terms of politics. Because this is not the nationwide peace talk. The military council’s invitation of the EAOs by omitting the National Unity Government (NUG) the People’s Defense Forces (PDFs) aims to create disunity between the EAOs and the PDFs. Another point is the military is attempting to create disunity between the ethnics and Bamar, especially the PDFs in which the majority of Bamar people are included. In my view, the military attempts to defend its losses on the international stage through peace talk. I assume that the military’s attempt is aimed for Asean and China especially. Another point is the military’s attempt to reorganize the declining unity and morale. To sum up, the peace invitation has three ambitions. In my view, this is a political offensive as it can create a debate among the oppositions which accept and object to it.
Q: The political analysts have criticized that inviting the EAOs by omitting the NUG and the PDFs which are fighting against the military shows that the military has no desire to actually solve the political crisis. May I know your view on it?
A: I also second this view. Because we get a correct answer by ensuring the inclusion of all stakeholders without any condition when we solve the Myanmar political problem. As a matter of fact, the question whether the military has a desire to solve the Myanmar political problem without the inclusion of some groups in the peace talk, becomes more valid.
Q: Some EAOs accepted the military council’s invitation while other groups objected to it. Although the groups which accepted the military’s invitation revealed the reasons why they accepted the invitation. The groups which accepted the invitation failed to clearly reveal the reasons why they accepted it. What is the interest of the groups which accepted the invitation?
A: It is a little bit difficult to say clearly what their interests are. However, the groups which accepted the invitations are the ones which have no clashes with the military. They are the groups which have made a ceasefire. The Wa group has made a ceasefire with the government for 20 or 30 years. As a matter of fact, there have been no political problems with the government so far. On the other hand, the Mon and the Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS) are included in the Peace Process Steering Team (PPST). They accepted the military’s peace invitation. The majority of the groups which have clashes with the military object to it. Only a handful of the big groups will accept it. My understanding is that the groups present the facts they want and listen to what the military says. Is it possible? It is difficult for me to say what other interests are.
Q: The military said there were around 10 groups which would attend the peace talk. Now, the Shan and Mon groups have met with the military. May I know your view on why the military meets the groups separately instead of meeting them simultaneously?
A: The military has said that it has to hold separate talks as the needs of each group are different. Take a look at the Tatmadaw’s peace talk pattern, the Tatmadaw’s attitude towards the groups are different. The big groups got more favour from the Tatmadaw while the small groups got less favour. The military will meet the small groups only after meeting with the big groups. I think the topics discussed at the meeting may be different as the military meets the group separately. Different agreements may hamper the unity among the armed groups.
Q: The Shan group issued a statement after the meeting saying that both sides signed the agreement. However, both sides have not released the official statements which agreements were made. May I know your view on why they failed to release the agreements?
A: It is really a puzzle. Many questions have emerged. The news said the military signed the agreement with Shan group. Not only the military council but also the Shan group should publicize the agreements made in terms of politics. The military also reached an agreement with the New Mon State Party (NMSP) on the rights to draft the charter and the state charter. But we don’t know what they are. Both sides need to release it clearly and transparently. Only then, will it help support the public’s cooperation and decision on which results will come out from the talk and which path they should walk on. A lot of questions arise as both sides have kept the agreements secret. I think similar conditions may emerge in the meeting with each group. Both sides need to make it public. Another point is that the Mon group reached an agreement with the military on the charter-drafting. How will it be implemented? Will it be implemented through the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) path? Will the Mon group get the rights to draft the state charter? How will it be implemeted? They need to clearly publicize it. Which path will be used is of great importance. Will it be implemented under the 2008 Constitution? They need to make it public transparently in order that the results and meeting are transparent. A lot of questions arise among the public as both sides fail to publicize the results. The public will monitor it under suspicious eyes.
Q: Some groups which will meet with the military chief said that their main ambition is to find the means in which all the stakeholders can participate, in order to solve the current armed conflicts. In practice, does it really work?
A: In my view, the chance is very slim. Because the military omitted some groups in its invitation. I heard the news that Mon and Shan groups presented their demands and suggestions at the meeting. Under this circumstance, the groups which attended the peace talk have a desire to ensure the emergence of an all-inclusive path. They discussed the fact that an all inclusive path is required to solve political problems. In practice, it is unlikely to happen.
Q: The military is facing international sanctions and isolations consecutively. The military also suffers heavy casualties on the ground. May I know your view on the criticism that this peace talk is the military’s attempt to look for an exit?
A: I think this criticism is true. The military council is in a position to face the problems on all fronts. The military council is facing losses in the military affairs, on battle ground and in the international arena. It can be said that this is the military’s exit-seeking or counter-offensive. In a meeting with the Mon group yesterday, the military council said it would hold the election in 2023. This is the military council’s attempt to seek a political exit. Especially, the military is attempting to handover the country’s power from the military government to the elected government through the election. This aims to get the public’s support and reduce the international pressures. I think this meeting creates a space for the 2023 election which is a political exit. The first point is the military gives a reason for peace. The military is attempting to go to a space to hold the new election in terms of politics after the peace process. As a matter of fact, the chance of holding the 2023 election arranged by the military council is very slim, I think.
Q: My last question is what is the final way to solve the political and military problems in Myanmar in addition to the current political problem? How should these problems be solved?
A: In fact, solving the political problem by political means is the best way. I think all the groups should try to ensure the emergence of such means. I think it is not in a position to hold a political dialogue at present. The dialogue path will not emerge as the NUG and the military council have declared as the terrorist groups reciprocally. I think even if they talk about the path of political dialogue, there should be the fact that which path and point will be the basis for the talk?
The KNU’s pattern is that the military must get out of politics. We will get the way to solve the problem if we go to the dialogue path after the creation of a condition with an agreement to build up the federal democratic union. At present, I think the dialogue is unlikely to emerge as the military is talking about peace on the one hand and increasing the military activities on the other hand. In my view, we should build our own power rather than pinning our hopes on the current peace talk. The current space is not the one which can solve the problem.
Sent by KIC.
