Moving Forward on Burma

In the wake of President Obama's recent visit to Myanmar (also known as Burma), it is important for policy analysts and conflict resolution practitioners alike to reassess the United States' role in facilitating and encouraging peacebuilding in Burma. This article examines the ways in which the United States and multilateral organizations such as the UN and ASEAN can help resolve many of Burma's pressing challenges.

Burma currently faces three distinct but interconnected dimensions to conflict: an armed conflict between the government and various ethnic organizations (in pursuit of ethnic federalism); communal violence, particularly amongst Muslim minorities such as the Rohingya (viewed by many Burmese as illegal migrant Bengalis); and a civil-military political conflict between the government and the pro-democracy movement (led by Aung San Suu Kyi as a figurehead). Any peacebuilding intervention must simultaneously address these three dimensions, and create sustainable, self-reinforcing structures that promote collaborative problem solving. In order for any peacebuilding interventions to be successful, interveners should keep in mind the following considerations.

Assessment: Conflict in Burma is not singular in nature, but is instead characterized by a series of interwoven relationships involving multiple parties, divergent and convergent interests, and the influence and intervention of external actors. In order to have a full understanding of the conflict, any intervention should start first and foremost with a comprehensive mapping and analysis that takes into account the causal linkages and the complexity of interconnected relationships between actors.

Coordination: Coordination amongst external interveners, as well as coordination with local stakeholders will be a top priority before any peacebuilding intervention efforts take place. In order to do so, the establishment of an independent, all-inclusive body that can be used as a forum to coordinate peacebuilding efforts is necessary. The body should be comprised of representatives from both the international community/donor organizations, as well as representatives from the Burmese government, the NLD, ethnic parties, and civil society. This body should serve to identify funding priorities, capabilities and weaknesses; to disseminate information to all members; and to jointly delegate roles and responsibilities. Due to the time-sensitive nature of peacebuilding, this body may at first be formed ad hoc, but should eventually be incorporated into the formal structure of the Burmese state (while maintaining its independence) in order to promote local ownership and sustainability.

Phased Intervention Programs: Conflict in Burma exists on three "levels," namely, its Symptoms, Relationships, and Underlying Causes. It is difficult to address each level without addressing the prior; yet at the same time, interventions that only address one level of conflict will become flawed and unsustainable. For example, heavy fighting amongst armed groups and internal displacement of civilians are symptoms that can be addressed through negotiating a ceasefire and providing humanitarian aid. However, interventions must go beyond this level in order to address the asymmetric relationships (e.g., centralization of power), and eventually address the underlying causes (e.g., lack of self-determination and basic needs) to create more equitable structures (e.g., compromise for local governance and resource sharing).

Simultaneous, Multi-Faceted Intervention Programs: Interventions at each level of conflict should simultaneously incorporate the following four elements, namely, dialogue, security, development, and reconciliation (consistent with the Obama Doctrine of Defense, Diplomacy, and Development). Dialogue encompasses both political and social dialogue, the overall goal of which would be to bring conflicting parties towards a collaborative problem-solving and consensus-building framework in which issues can be openly addressed without resorting to violence. Security refers to the ability of the state to provide rule of law through consent, as well as the broader aspects of human security. In Burma, this would involve both a “state building” and “nation building” effort that includes the cessation of hostilities and the reform/restructuring of the state apparatus. Development is the ability to substantively and sustainably fulfill the primary needs of a society. This includes aspects such as food (food security), income (economic security), health (health security) and the environment (environmental security). In this regard, the state, the business sector and civil society all play a role in ensuring and furthering the development of a society. Reconciliation can be defined as “restoring broken relationships and learning to live with radical differences.” It can be further argued that reconciliation is the process of narrative building across all three levels of conflict reality, in which parties perceive and define themselves and their relations with others. Each of these elements combined are mutually reinforcing, and therefore coordination efforts should be inclusive of all four elements, delegating roles and responsibilities to interveners and stakeholders.

Burma now stands at a crossroads where recent reforms have created a window of opportunity for a true and substantive peacebuilding effort to take place (i.e., the ripeness for intervention). However, conflict is still ongoing and many threats to peaceful transformation and democratic consolidation remain. A successful peacebuilding effort must be able to identify and address these threats. It should additionally be maximalist and holistic, as well as inclusive of both local and international actors. In the end, it is the people of Burma who will shape its future, and any attempts at creating a peacebuilding strategy should be fully inclusive of their ideas and responsive to their needs.