TERM PAPER AND PRESENTATION

Semester 1 (JanuaryJune 2015)

COURSE 1102: Principles of Conflict Studies

Term Paper

ETHNIC CONFLICT OF MYANMAR: THE

FORGOTTEN INENTITY

Masters in Peace and Human Rights Development Studies

Faculty of Security Studies
Bangladesh University of Professionals

Submitted by:
Rumana Binte Masud
Student ID No: PH 1501003
Date: 08 May 2015

1.

Presenter Introduction.

Myanmar is the scene of one of the

longest ongoing conflicts in the world. Due to recent efforts at reforms and
democratization, Myanmar has come under the light of the media and the
ethnic clashes have attracted more attention than they ever have in the
past. This paper aims to examine the potential for conflict transformation.
The presentation provides a glimpse of the conflict dynamics and suggests
the need for a systemic transformation to provide a solution to this
intractable violence.
2.

Relevance to present work/study/Profession.

Conflict Studies aims to prevent war, to de-escalate war and to provide

solutions to international conflicts. However, Conflict Studies is useless, if not
applied as a strategy for change. Leaving the causes of conflict unchanged
will inevitably lead to renewed conflict at a larger stage. The conflict in
Myanmar has been going on for over sixty years, making it one of the
longest ongoing conflicts in the world. To date, neither the international
community made up of actors such as states, international organizations,
NGOs nor internal actors have been able to provide a suitable way towards
long-term and sustainable peace. Efforts to resolve the conflict have failed
until now because conflict resolution efforts have largely focused on trying
tocontrol the conflict in order to eliminate it. Indeed, efforts towards peace in
Myanmar have been limited because the issues at the origin of the struggle
have been ignored, having been judged intractable and thus impossible to
deal with. The paper addressed the multilevel nature of ethnic conflicts,
based on complexity theory. This papersees how one particular strand of
conflict

transformation,

systemic

conflict

transformation,

inspired

by

complexity theory, when used as a theoretical framework, can give us new

insight into a way forward for the conflict resolution. The paper found the
conflict less resolved on the immediate outcome, a peace agreement, and

more on changing the structural patterns that cause violence, the core
difference and belief or ethnicity.
3.

Background of the conflictSoon after Burma gained independence

in 1948, insurgency broke out in Burma, in part because of grievances over

the perceived exclusion of ethnic minority groups in the governing of the
country post-independence. Insurgencies spread and intensified, especially
in the early 1960s following the military coup. Burmese internal conflict is
considered as divided into four major parts: civil wars under parliamentary
rule (1948-1962), civil wars under military rule in Cold War (1962-1988),
1988 Uprising and civil wars military rule after Cold War (1988present).
a.

Civil wars under parliamentary rule (1948-1962): The

Communist and Karen ethnic group fought the Burmese government

since Burma gained its independence from England. Both groups were
strong and large rebel groups and could control all entire Burma except
the capital city of Burma.Unfull-fledged parliamentary government had
fought civil wars with very large rebel groups and the role of military
was the higher and higher in government.
b.

Civil wars under military rule in Cold War (1962-1988): By

the time of three successive parliamentary government ruled in Burma,

there was military coup d'tat and General Ne Win became the
country's leader. Ethnic rebellions started in the early 1960s after the
central government refused to consider a federal government structure.
By the early 1980s, politically oriented armed insurgencies were ended
and ethnic-based insurgencies continued.
c.

1988 Uprising: On 8 August 1988, student demonstrations

that included ochre-robed monks, young children, housewives and

doctors spread throughout Burma, as the country's citizens protested
against the regime. Theuprising ended on 18 September 1988 after

a military coup was enacted by the State Law and Order Restoration
Council (SLORC). According to the Economist, 3000 or more people were
killed in the public uprising in Burma in 1988.
d.

Civil wars military rule after Cold War (1988present):

During the public uprising in 1988, Aung San Su Kyi became a national
icon for her leading role in opposition groups. The second generation of
military junta held elections in 1990 and her party, The National League
for Democracy (NLD) won with a landslide victory. However, the military
junta refused to honor the election results and Aung San Su Kyi was
placed under house arrest for the next 15 years. Ethnics rebel groups
were out of support from both of the wings (left and right). They were
severely fought by government forces and lose their main bases in
1990s. Since 2006, a Burmese army offensive has been enacted against
the KNU in Karen State, and has resulted in the displacement of a high
number of people. One estimate has identified approximately half a
million people who have been displaced within eastern Burma due to
armed conflict and the forcible relocation of villages. In 2007, hundred
thousands of monks defied the government, but were severely crushed
down by government. In 2010, government introduced its new
Constitution and Aung San Su Kyi, and thousands of political prisoners,
were released. In 2011, the Burmese army initiated a military operation
called "Zwe Man Hein" to combat the rebel groups in Shan State. The
offensive was a response from the Burmese army, as the rebel groups
refused to accept Burma's 'One Nation One Army' policy.
e.

National Reconciliation

National Reconciliation by Cease fire Agreements. Most

ethnic groups became armed struggle after first military coup
in 1962 and successive military governments used four cuts
counter insurgency policy in ethnic areas. The "four cuts"

policy involved cut communications among rebel armed

groups as well as local people, cut off people and trade route
in designated territories, search and destruction of any
possible supply in the areas. On the other hand, the military
government

forced

ethnics

groups

to

sign

ceasefire

agreements with ethnic rebels groups while government

troops were trying to root out their main bases in 1990s. In
meanwhile, ethnic minorities political parties which won seats
in 1990 elections and formed the second largest prodemocracy block after NLD were severely oppressed in cities.
By the end of the century, there were 20 armed opposition
groups ceased fire with governments However, government
made political dialogues with neither cease fire groups nor
winning political parties. Therefore, some ethnic groups didn't
cease fire with government and continued armed struggle.
The ethnic populations were the most suffered from a result of
long-standing hostilities with the central government. They
have been treated as enemies of the state and second class
citizens.

National Reconciliation by Road Map.

2008,

military

government

tried

to

From

1993

approve

to
draft

constitution by holding National Convention from 1993 to

2008 without approval of winning parties and armed ethnic
groups. In 2008, government introduced its new constitution
which included highly military role in government and
parliament by holding sceptical referendum aftermath of
widespread of destructions caused by cyclone Nargis. Even
though, the new constitution didn't show the first step to
liberalization,

it

was

survival

strategy

for

military

government because it had many power sharing incentives

among military elites. Burmese military transformed into

civilian

government

in

2010.

In

the

new

government,

President Thein Sein who was former members of military

general, bicameral parliament which had 25% of reserved
seats for active members of military armed forces, no
amendment couldn't be approved in the constitution without
the consent of 75% of parliamentary members, and all
presidents needed to have military experience.

National Reconciliation under New Constitution. Under

new government, there was state level, union level cease fire
agreement with combatant groups. 14 out of 17 combatants
groups made cease fire agreement with new government.
According to Myanmar Peace Monitoring Web Page, the
current clashes between Kachin Independence Organization
(KIO),

and

allies

(AA,

ABSDF,

TNLA)

caused

hundred

thousands of internally displaced person (IDP) and there were

severe humanitarian crisis in Kachin and northern Shan states .
All

minorities

ethnic

groups

wanted

negotiations

in

accordance with Pang Long Agreement (1948) which granted

self-determination, federalism and ethnic equality. However,
under new constitution, there was only a few role of minority
rights and therefore government discussed with armed ethnic
group on the sideline of constitution. On the other hand, there
was no inclusive plan or body that represents all armed
groups. In resent armed ethnic conference, KNU walked out
from

the

conference

and

complained

the

lack

of

independence for each party within the ethnic bloc. However,

most of the cease fire agreement between the State Peace
Deal

Commission

and

communication process
4. The Conflict

armed

groups

were

formal

a.

Actorsand Stakeholders. The conflict being of an internal

nature, the main conflict actors are mostly ethnicarmed groups. While
there are dozens of these armed groups(See table-1), the most recent
clashes are occurring between the government forces called the
Tatmadaw, and the rebel groups present mostly in the Kachin state, the
KachinIndependence Army (KIA) that operates for the KIO.

Military
conflict

Ethnopolitical
conflict

Ethnosocietal
conflict

Primary
actors
- Tatmadaw
- KIA factions

Secondary
Actors
- Affected
populations
- States and
organizations
providing
weapons
militias
- Drug cartels
abroad
Tatmadaw
- Affected
- KIA factions populations
mainly
and - States and
other
organizations
ethnic groups providing
- Rohingya
weapons
militias
- Rohingya
- Affected
muslims
populations
Buddhist - Religious
ethnic
institutions
groups
- Burmese
government
Educational

Tertiary
Actors/Stakeholders
- International
community
- Media
- Refugee hosting
states

- International
community
- Media
- Neighboring
countries
(Thailand,
China)
International
community
- Media
- UN
- INGOs
- Malaysia and
Thailand,
Bangladesh,

Table 1: conflict parties

Additionally, the persecutions against the Rohingya minority present in
the northern state of Rakhine have intensified since 2011. The struggle

has two fronts: the Rohingyas are opposed to both the Buddhist
population in the Rakhine state and to the Tatmadaw. Like all conflicts,
especially civil, there are also secondary and tertiary parties that are
involved in the different conflict subsystems in a less obvious way.
Tertiary parties can act as facilitators of change, mediators and
observers.
b.

Causes of Conflict. To understand the ethnic conflict, it is

essential to look into the issues of conceptual differences, constitutional

crisis, national identity, majority-minority configuration and other
pressing issues like human rights violations, drugs and environmental
management.
(1)

Conceptual

Differences.The

successive

military

dominated regimes, including the ruling SPDC, see Myanmar as

an existing unified. As such, all other non-Burmans-Shan, Kachin,
Chin, Arakanese, Mon, Karen and Karenni - are seen as
minorities, which must be controlled and suppressed, lest they
break up the country.
Given such conceptual differences, the Burmese military goes
about

with

its

implementation

of

protecting

"national

sovereignty" and "national unity"t all cost. This, in turn, gives

way to open conflict resulting in more suppression and gross
human
(2)

rights

violations.

Constitutional Crisis. The woes of Myanmar today are

deeply rooted in the inadequate constitutional drafting of 1947.

The Union Constitution was rushed through to completion
without reflecting the spirit of Panglong. The ethnic homelands
were recognized as constituent states but all power was
concentrated in the central government or the government of

the
(3)

Burma

Mother

state.

National Identity. The views of successive Myanmar

governments, including the present regime, SPDC, concerning

national identity has never been clear. They have been at a loss
even as to what sort of name they should adopt; that is the
reason why they are still using "Bamar" and "Myanmar"
interchangeably for what they would like to be termed a common
collective identity, in other words, national identity.
(4)

Lack of recognition of ethnic groups. The source of the

protracted ethno-political conflict is the lack of recognition

ofethnic groups in the majoritarian Burmanstate of Myanmar.
Burma is constitutedof 60% of non Burman minorities who feel
they are not being given sufficient rightsand access to power.
The oppressive and discriminatory military regime that hasbeen
ruling the country since the independence from the British has
beenresponsible for the lack of basic freedoms. The conflict lies
on the fundamental incompatibility of identities in Myanmar.

(5)

Majority Minority Configuration.

The

misconception of majority-minority configuration has been so

entrenched; at least in medias and academic studies, it needs
some clarification. The Burman are majority in Burma Proper and
in numerical sense, but become a minority in the Shan States,
Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni, Karen, and the Mon states, where
respective ethnic groups are in majority within their own
territories.
Besides, Burma was formed in 1947 by virtue of the Panglong
Agreement, one year prior to independence. This agreement was
signed between the interim government of Ministerial Burma,
headed by Aung San, and leaders of the Federated Shan States,
the Chin Hill Tract, and the Kachin Hill Tract. It could be said that
this agreement is the genesis of the post-colonial, current
Burma.

Thus, the indigenous groups of Burma -- Shan, Arakanese, Chin,

Kachin, Karenni, Karen, Mon and including the Burman -- are not
minorities or majorities but equal partners in a union of
territories, the union of Barma. Other Pressing Issues it goes
without saying, addressing of the pressing issues can never be
completed without drugs and gross human rights violations in
Shan States. The planned Salween dam project by the Thai and
SPDC regimes and the blasting of Mekong River are also looming
ecology
(6)

disasters,

Drugs.

which

need

to be

addressed.

Shan Herald Agency for News recently released

a report titled "Show Business: Rangoon's War on Drugs in Shan

State", where the investigative findings provides evidence that
the drug industry is integral to the regime's political strategy to
pacify and control Shan States, and concludes that only political
reform can solve Burma's drug problems.
c.

Conflict dynamics. In the case of Myanmar, at this stage of the

conflict, all parties are competing against each other. None of them is
willing to compromise as proves the ongoing fighting. Human Rights
research Matthew Smith gives a good summary of thecurrent situation
in Burma: I would imagine that there are people in the Burmese
military who anticipate sitting down eventually with the Kachin, so the
more groundthey can take over before that point, the better their
negotiating position will be
Conflict dynamics
In the case of Myanmar, at this stage of the conflict, all parties are
competing against each other. None of them is willing to compromise as
proves the ongoing fighting. Human Rights research Matthew Smith gives a
good summary of the current situation in Burma: I would imagine that there

are people in the Burmese military who anticipate sitting down eventually
with the Kachin, so the more ground they can take over before that point, the
better their negotiating position will be. An attempt was made by President
Thein Sein to avoid the conflict and change its dynamics by declaring a
unilateral ceasefire with KIA in January 2013. This clearly represents a winlose situation for ethnic armed groups who do not see any advantage to a
ceasefire agreement that would force them to disarm and remain vulnerable
to violent military incursions from the government87. Despite the ceasefire
and the claims by President Thein Sein that hostilities have ceased, KIA
asserts that they are still suffering from violence and human rights
abuses88. This attempt to transform the issue was a failure due to a lack of
trust between parties and a lack of political and military commitment. This
can be explained by a long historyof conflict and mistrust between ethnic
groups and the ruling party.
The Myanmar conflict follows a retaliatory conflict spiral model. This model
proposed by Pruitt, Rubin and Kim89 suggests that the escalation of the
conflict follows a spiral model in which each party responds to the
opponents immediate or past behaviour. The accumulated or recent feelings
of anger dictate the reaction of each party leading to conflict escalation. This
appears difficult to stop because the negative feelings towards the other and
possible misperception of their behavior prevent any conciliatory actions
such as cessation of hostilities, mediation or negotiations.

Conflict Dynamics

d.

Conflict

Violence

Rohingya minority.

and

Force

flee:

Case

Study

on

While their settlement in the Burmese state of

Rakhine dates back from the 15thCentury, the Rohingyas right to

acquire citizenship had always been denied and isstill denied to this
day. The refusal of any state, including Myanmar, to recognizethem as
its own citizens has progressively created frustration and anger among
theMuslim community. In the 1950s, the minority therefore redefined
its identity as the Rohingya, a community that was both Muslim and,
according to them, belonged toMyanmar, an area they had been
occupying for centuries. More than an ethnic group, the term Rohingya
was then used to designate a political movement, nowadays present
all around the world due to the large number of exiles that havefled
the country to avoid discrimination and violence. Grounded in history,
therecent clashes in the Rakhine province have a more immediate
cause: the rape andmurder of a Buddhist woman by four Muslim men
on May 28th 2012. Since then, the Rohingyas have been heavily
persecuted by the Buddhist population of theregion who accuses them
of having stolen their lands. The persecution has taken theform of
violence, discrimination, blockades and boycotts. Worse, the antiRohingya movement is led by the Buddhist monks in the region who
have encouraged the ultra nationalist events. Moreover, Aung San Suu
Kyi recently stated that she would not be taking sides in this
international tragedy. Themarginalized minority does not seem to have
any advocate, which could explain thelack of efforts to find a solution
to this protracted conflict.
The Tadmadaw has also participated in the violence through armed
incursion. Whilea number of ceasefires have been instated in order to
stop violence betweenMuslims, Buddhists and the Government, the
Muslim minority has been ignoredand the conflict is still escalating.
This has caused massive movements of refugeestowards others

provinces

and

other

countries,

mostly

Malaysia,

Bangladesh

andThailand. The problem has therefore taken an international

dimension, raising theconcern of the international community and
human rights NGOs. Australian PrimeMinister Julia Gillard has even
expressed concerns over ethnic cleansing inNorthern Myanmar.
Bangladesh is concerned about the increasing influx ofrefugees and
asylum seekers incoming from Myanmar and has startedsystematically
pushing back incoming boats.Thailand has recently expressed similar
concerns, explaining that the flow ofrefugees had become too large
and boat people would from now on be interceptedand detained before
being sent back to Myanmar.The international credibility of Myanmar is
highly threatened by this issue and theinternational community has
been asked to uphold its responsibility to protect as thenumber of
casualties, refugees and asylum seekers grows every day. They
areworried about the humanitarian situation on the ground which is
said to behorrible as many UN agencies and NGOs call for urgent
action. NGO workersreport that the priorities should be sanitation, the
provision of drinking water and the prevention of disease as personal
hygiene conditions worsen and the rainy seasonapproaches.While the
issue has only taken its importance in the media recently, it is a
problemthat has been going on for decades. The ethnic group is
considered by the UnitedNations as the most persecuted in the world,
both by Myanmar and by neighboring countries.
The essence of the problem comes from the refusal of granting
theRohingyas citizenship. According to the 1982 Citizenship Law,
people born of descendants that were in the Myanmar before 1948
should become citizens withinthree generations. This means that most
Rohingyas should be citizens by now. Inpractice, because of active
discrimination against their ethnicity, they are almost allstateless.
While Thein Sein is willing to make compromises with Burmese

ethnicminorities, he declared that the 800,000 Rohingyas that are

living in Rakhine statewere illegal immigrants and therefore their
protection should not the responsibilityof Myanmar. The Rohingya issue
therefore follows an exclusion archetype ofconflict.
The United Nations estimates more than 100,000 Rohingya fled
Myanmar this way since ethnic and sectarian violence erupted in the
country's western Rakhine state in the summer of 2012. Hundreds died
making the seaborne journey.The 2012 clashes between the state's
Rakhine Buddhist community and Rohingya Muslims, a long-oppressed
linguistic and ethnic minority in this majority Buddhist country, left
hundreds dead and more than 140,000 people homeless. (CNN news:
Nov 2014)
5. Present Status of the conflict
The long ongoing conflict in Myanmar has a vast and long lasting impact
on

humanitarian

consequences,

environmental

and

resources

destructions, an overview of this more than 60 years conflict will help in

understanding about the result of the conflict in Myanmar. The conflict
took a toll of almost 2,10,00 lives and resulted a forces flee including
hundreds thousands of IDPs (Internally Displaced Person), Refugees
resulting homeless people within Myanmar and other countries.
a. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPS)
Whilst there is some data for IDPs in eastern Burma, there is less for
those in western Burma. Nevertheless, we have collated some
numbers and references below. It is important to remember that these
numbers are just rough estimates, as they are very difficult to verify
and fluctuate widely (see Table -2).
Sate/Provinces

No. of IDPs

Year /sources

/Regions
Shan State

145,600 IDPs

TBBC, 2011

Karenni State

35,100 IDPs

TBBC, 2011

Pegu Region

44,900 IDPs

TBBC, 2011

Karen State

106,800 IDPs

TBBC, 2011

Mon State

40,000 IDPs

TBBC, 2011

Kachin State

77,600 IDPs

TBBC, 2011

Tanintharyi Region

55,000 IDPs

UN-OCHA, 2012

Chin State

65,000 IDPs

Physicians for Human Rights,

Rakhine (Arakan) State

80,000 IDPs

2011
Narinjara News, 2002

Table : 2- IDPs
Estimated total: 650,000 IDPs in Burma
There is little information available on internal displacement in western
Burma. Limited access to affected areas and lack of independent
monitoring make it virtually impossible to verify their reports of the
numbers and situations of internally displaced people. Furthermore, in
Western Burma the situation is far less well-reported and levels of aid and
advocacy are lower compared to Thailand border areas. Overall estimates
of the total number of IDPs, including many long-term IDPs, goes up to
several million.
b. Refugees.
Like IDPs, statistics for refugees are hard to verify. The numbers
below are estimates of refugees from Burma,
both registered and unregistered, living in Burma's neighboring
countries.
(1)

Thailand: 146,000 refugees

Burmese refugees in Thailand mainly come from the states

along the Thai-Burma border, especially Shan State, Karen

State and Karenni State. Most are ethnic minorities fleeing
conflict and human rights abuses, but there are also many
political refugees of Burman ethnicity and migrant workers.
(UNHCR, 2012)
(2)

China: 10,000-40,000 refugees

Since June 2011, at least 60,000 people have been displaced

from their homes in Kachin State in northern Burma - many of
whom have fled across the border to China - to escape
renewed fighting after the Burmese Army broke a 17-year-old
ceasefire.
(3)

India: 100,000 refugees

Most Burmese refugees in India are Chin, with smaller Kachin,

Arakan, and Burman populations as well. Most are trying
to escape famine, restrictions on basic freedoms, poverty and
persistent human rights abuses committed by the Burmese
Army.
(Refugees International, 2009; Chin Human Rights
Organization, 2009)
(4)

Bangladesh: 229,000-250,000 refugees

Burmese refugees in Bangladesh are largely Rohingya, coming

from Rakhine State in southwestern Burma. They flee to
Bangladesh to escape atrocious violations of their human
rights, including systematic discrimination, arbitrary taxation,
forced labor, or confiscation of their land. The Rohingya are
not considered citizens and are unable to move, marry, or find
jobs without obtaining permits or paying bribes.
(UNHCR, 2012; Open Society Institute, 2011)

c.

The Governments Peace Initiative.

In his inaugural

address and subsequent speeches, President Thein Sein has

spoken of his determination to give top priority to national
unity to overcome the hell of untold miseries brought about
by decades of ethnic conflict. He stated clearly that he was
opening the door topeace. These positive words did not
immediately translate into much optimism in ethnic minority
areas. Since March, there has been very little change in the
mood on the ground in the periphery of the country, and these
communities say that they see very little change in their
situation. While the government has shown increasing flexibility
in negotiations with armed groups, overcoming the legacy of
decades of brutal conflict and mutual distrust is a huge
challenge. In the first months of his administration, President
Thein Sein shifted the approach to the ethnic minority situation
in three unprecedented ways:

Recognizing the importance of the ethnic issue and

pledging to make it a national priority. No Myanmar leader

in recent times has stated so clearly the plight of the ethnic
peoples and made addressing it a top national priority;

Offering dialogue with all armed groups. Successive

military governments have tended to offer peace parleys

selectively. The State Peace and Development Council
refused, for example, to have ceasefire talks with the Shan
State Army-South because it had been part of Khun Sas
Mong Tai Army, which had already surrendered.

Dropping key preconditions. The insistence by the

State Peace and Development Council that armed groups

must transform into Border Guard Forces has been

removed. There has also been acceptance that there can
be political dialogue following ceasefires something that
previous military governments had always sought to
postpone and then pre-empted with the border guard
demand.
d.

The Initial Response of the Armed Groups. Apart from

the three groups that agreed ceasefires following the presidents

initial peace overture, the other armed groups remained
skeptical. Those that still engaged in armed opposition to the
government fell into two categories:
those that had never had ceasefires: the Shan State
Army-South, the Karen National Union (KNU), the Karenni
National Progressive Party (KNPP), and the Chin National
Front (CNF).

those that refused to become border guard forces

and

whose

ceasefires

government:the

Kachin

were

declared

void

Independence

by

the

Organisation

(KIO),the Shan State Army-North (SSA-N), and the New

MonState Party (NMSP). Armed clashes had resumed
withthe KIO and the SSA-N, but not the NMSP.
6. Recommendations.
Having thoroughly analyzed the different systems conflict and their
dynamics as well as proposed a systemic transformation strategy, this
final aim of this study is to highlight and discuss four key areas of change

that require attention in order to induce change within the systems and
transform the conflict towards peace.
a.

Individual transformation. Conflict transformation is going to

require

for

both

sides

to

make

compromises, goals

must

be

transformed through bargaining techniques that take into account

ideologies, religion, past, myths and other essential characteristics of
conflict parties. To achieve this, individual transformation is necessary.
b.

Interpersonal transformation.

There

is

need

to

emphasize the importance of relationships in conflict transformation

and proposes interpersonal capacity building measures in collaboration
with otherstakeholders. This study suggests the use of truth and
reconciliation

commissions

in

cooperation

with

local

and

international civil society based on the examples of South Africa,

Argentina and Chile.
c.

Structural transformation.All the problems in this country

could be fixed if the political system were fixed. The structural

transformation must therefore focus on changes in governance. Long
term stability could be obtained by implementing a federal system of
governance with power sharing institutions where rule of law and
military structures depend on regional offices that report to the central
government.
d.

Societal transformation.

The

need

for

cultural

transformation is often underestimated. It is however essentialin ethnic

conflicts in order to create a sense of common identity. This study
suggests the creation of nationwide education programs designed to
teach children about their nation and the equity between ethnicities.

Language policies must also be put into place to ensure the respect
of all dialects.
7.

Conclusion.

This study has provided an analysis of the

multiple systems of conflict in Myanmar through the lens of conflict

transformation and complexity theory. Complexitytheory has provided insight
into

the

complex

nature

of

this

intractable

conflict

while

conflict

transformation theory helped suggest a new angle to approach the

conflict.Findings show that conflict transformation can bring the country
forward, towards democracy, development and peace. It will require careful
implementation and systematic monitoring as well as commitment from all
stakeholders

of

the

conflict

and

potentially

external

help.

Conflict

transformation, including reconciliation, governance changes, transformation

of attitudes and behaviors and trust building, is a process that unravels over
years, even decades and one should not expect immediate results.
Reference Documents
1.

Conflicts in Myanmar: A systemic approach to conflict analysis and

transformation, Lund University Department of Political Science Global

Studies Program.
2.

Politics and Ethnic Dimension of the Conflict in Burma. Author: Soe

Myat New.
3.

IPCS Special Report: Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

4.

Myanmar: a new peace initiative, Asia report n214 30 november

2011.
5.

The Dynamics of Conflict in the Multiethnic Union of Myanmar PCIA -

Country Conflict-Analysis Study.

6.

Ethnic Conflict and the 2010 Elections in Burma.

Dr

Marie

Lall,

Associate Fellow, Asia Programme, Chatham House.

7.
Myanmars Ethnic Divide and Conflicts. CS Kuppuswamy, Consultant,
South Asia Analysis Group.
8.
Prospects for Peace in Myanmar: Opportunities and Threats. PRIO
Paper.
9.
Ethnic war in Myanmar. 2013 SOPA awards nomination for reporting
breaking news.
10.

2015 UNHCR country operations profile Myanmar.