War of Escalation in Kachin State: Why Are the Guns Not Silent?

[or Lai Hpau post] for about 30 minutes, starting at 2 pm.” on Friday.

He said that since 20 September, Burma Army troops used 120 mm and 105 mm artillery to attack Lai Hpau and nearby outpost Nhkaram, which are about three kilometres away from the Myitkyina-Bhamo highway.

The KIA troops are a security unit, used to defend the KIA headquarters in Laiza, which is about 30-40 kilometres from the current area of engagement.

Naw Bu said that the offensives could be an effort to “put pressure on the KIA” to sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), in order to “implement the Burma Army’s plan to bring the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of non-state armed groups,” which was raised by military representatives during the UPC.

The Kachin News Group (KNG) reported that the Lai Hpau and Nhkaram outposts were repeatedly attacked since the month of August. But during last week the offensive intensified, with the Burma army using some 300 to 500 troopers, firing artillery, to overrun the KIA camps. The KNG Burmese section of 22 September said that the Burma Army casualty figure to be 70 killed in action and 40 wounded, while the KIA suffered one death. However, the said figures were not confirmed by either side of the warring parties.

Meanwhile, KNG on 19 September reported that some 300 Burma Army soldiers slipped into China, reportedly wearing civilian clothes which a border observer on military affairs suspected  would be used to attacked the Laiza headquarters. Reportedly in the past, when the Burma Army attacked and seized the KIO’s former headquarters at Nahpaw-Pajau Bum in 1987, its troops had attacked the KIA positions from across the border in China, according to KIA officials.

In addition, The Myanmar Times reported recently that military involving infantry troops, armoured vehicle squads, air force personnel and an anti-terrorism unit all participated in the combined military exercise which involved several fighter jets. The final day of the exercise included mobilising a 155-millimetre howitzer and 122-millimetre rocket missiles.

The Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing was there on September 24 following a drill that exercised both land and air fleets. The Tatmadaw chief said the two-day exercise – and the expenditure of much time, money and manpower to conduct it – was necessary to build the capacity of soldiers shouldering the duty of national defence.

Although Min Aung Hlaing said that that the Burma army is doing this exercise as a conventional war game to build the capacity for conventional war purpose, in the light of the heightened military offensives on the KIA, some suspected that it could also be the preparation of a wider war.

Some few days ago there were also reports that the humanitarian aid destined for the internally displaced persons (IDP) along the Burma-China border were blocked by the military, saying that it might be for the KIA.

Given such circumstances and in order to make sense, as to why the military is so determined to be on war path,  it is necessary to look at the military’s mindset, particularly its world outlook and political conviction.

Military mindset

One thing is quite certain, for good or bad, the military knows that continued military dictatorship or something similar to that mode of governance system is not the way to go. But one should not be misled that the military has overnight become a saint or an enlightened democrat. It wants changes, but on its own terms and the main concern is that economically the country cannot be left behind, especially in comparison to its neighbouring countries that are well ahead of Burma. Besides, it is also interested to reduce the dependence on China, which during its years of isolation has been the only supporter of the then military regime.

And what exactly is this military’s “own terms”? To come short to the point, it is none other than the vehicle of disciplined flourishing democracy, which is anchored in the military-drawn, 2008 constitution, where its leading role and veto power are ensured, to protect its own group’s survival and interest.

In clear text, “to keep the military apparatus as it is now”, with ethnic Bamar domination and assimilation of the Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) into its Border Guard Force (BGF) scheme and “further continuation of the 2008 constitution”, with some cosmetic amendments to show that it has some features of federalism.

This means reforming just enough to uplift the country’s economic, with its hold on power intact, and not in anyway a genuine federalism that cater to the real democratic principles. But the restless EAOs and the ethnic nationalities are determined to achieve an equitable federal union and the reformation of the military to be a genuine federal army, not Bamar dominated army as it is now the case.

Three core reform problems

According to Ye Myo Hein, executive director of Tagaung Institute of Political Studies (TIPS), the Burma Army has three core reformation problems, which are indoctrination, institutional and political involvement, in his interview with the Frontier Myanmar on 8 July 2016.

He said regarding the indoctrination problematic, the military is convinced that they have to lead and guard the country.

Institutionally, he said: “They are not a professional military outfit yet. They have a lot of things to do to become a professional military. The codes of conduct are not strong enough and they have notorious human rights abuses that they need to solve”.

The third problem is a political one, which he stressed: “They are heavily involved in political affairs by having seats in parliament and the cabinet. If we talk about a civilian-military issue, we also have to talk about an ethnic-military issue. The military has problems with ethnic groups also”.

He summed up: “So there are three issues. The commander-in-chief has said they will form a professional army. If they want to do that, then they have to solve these three problems”.

Pushing through military’s own agendas

During the recent 21CPC, the military when delivering its position papers made it very clear that the military-drawn 2008 constitution would be the basis on which amendments could be made to become more federal, as it already has all the features to fulfil the task.

As it is, the military doesn’t have to take orders from the government. Thus it usually conducts and executes its own policy, especially where the ethnic states and the EAOs are concerned, the way it sees fit.

The exclusion of 3 EAOs – Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) and Arakan Army (AA) – from attending the 21CPC and offensives decision-making in Shan and Kachin states are examples, which showed even if the government wanted to have all inclusiveness political participation and unilateral or bilateral ceasefire, it was able to reject and torpedo them. And this is still ongoing in both of the issues mentioned.

This means in the light of what is happening in Kachin state, one could only conclude that the military is pursuing its own agenda of annihilation or surrender of the EAOs rather than the desired give-and-take negotiation process. And the NLD government is absolutely powerless against the military manipulation in important matters.

For example, in the case of 3 EAOs the military demanded them to issue the statement of  repentance for their armed struggle position. In other words, to confess their wrong doings for waging a resistance war. No one would believe such an undiplomatic ultimatum would be suggested by Suu Kyi, but Deputy Director General of the President’s Office Zaw Htay, who is a former military officer and also holds the same position during Thein Sein’s tenure, confirmed that it was exactly the case.

In a BBC report at the end of August, Zaw Htay when asked whether if this handling of the 3 EAOs is Suu Kyi’s desire, replied: “Under National Reconciliation and Peace Center (NRPC) there is Peace Commission (PC) and under State Counsellor’s control, there is Preparatory Committee for 21CPC, which is made up of the government, military and parliament.”

He pointed out: “When the Preparatory Committee tabled policy matters, the State Counsellor has to make decision. Here the high ranking military officers are also included, where their policies and the State Counsellors’ desired policies are adjusted. This policy decision what the State Counsellor has agreed upon is also the opinion of the military and the parliament.”

And regarding this, Suu Kyi was unable to do anything but kept silent, least she would be revealing her helplessness against military manipulation of the situation.

Brewing Cold-War?

Bertil Lintner, Swedish journalist, author and Burma expert, is of the opinion: “There is a new Cold War in Asia with an increasingly assertive China on one side and a loose alliance of the US, India and Japan on the other. In May this year, the US announced that it would lift its arms embargo against Vietnam, hardly a democratic nation that respects human rights, but a very useful ally against China,” according to a recent interview, on 12 September, by The Irrawaddy.

The same report added: “In 2011, Burma began to drift away from the close alliance it had had with China since crushing the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, [a move that] was welcomed by the US. In fact, Burma is the only example of the US managing to expand its influence at the expense of China’s”.

Although it is not clear to what extend the President Obama’s lifting of all the remaining sanctions, regarding the military would be covered, the United States has already re-engaged military cooperation with Burma since 2013, focusing on humanitarian issues, officer professionalization and human rights, in an effort to encourage the Burma Army to transform into a professional security force with civilian oversight. 

In addition to the United States’ military engagement, Japanese defence minister Tomomi Inada and her Burma counterpart, Lieutenant General Sein Win, agreed on 21 September to strengthen security co-operation between their countries, a Japanese official told Kyodo news agency. It is said to include increasing military capabilities, accepting students from Burma at the National Defence Academy of Japan, among others.

 Perspective

While it might be premature to assume that the Cold-War is indeed taking shape in Asian region, with Burma perhaps playing a minor role, within the whole conflict spectrum, the super power and  the aspiring super power – China, confrontation could also be real. But this would depend on how the give-and-take factors between the contending parties would play out or develop.

For now, no one knows how the South China Sea debacle would be resolved, with China claiming jurisdiction and the West, particularly the United State opposing it. The joint-military exercises between the United States, Japan and some Southeast Asian countries are examples of resistance against Chinese dominance in the region.

The latent rivalry in Burma context between the West and China is also there, even no one is portraying it earnestly for now that it could become a spark for the mini-Cold-War, with some EAOs siding with China on one side and some with the Western interest, including the Burma Army, on the other. A similar pattern like the war in Vietnam, so to speak.

But the world’s international configuration has drastically changed over the years and such a scenario might be quite  out of mode – although could still be possible – given that the intertwined globalization market mechanism where China’s market potential for the West and vice versa could not be ignored.

Even then, despite denial, the United State’s encirclement or containment policy on China is there and the Chinese efforts to influence Burma as a whole to come out as a winner is also not a secret.

But one thing is sure, China sees Burma as part of its dominated sphere to profit economically, politically and would not tolerate the country to be part of the United State’s containment tools. And while the Chinese are on charm offensives offering various goods and incentives doling out “carrots”, the stick also exist in form of the EAOs, that it has its influence along the China-Burma border.

How does this situation be interpreted from the realpolitik point of view? one might like to ask. And the simple answer would be, if the National League for Democracy (NLD) regime leans too much on the West, the stick could be used. But if the regime is accommodative to its economic schemes and of course, at least political neutrality would be maintained, if not wholeheartedly to China’s liking, it would help end the war of ethnic conflict by pressuring its so-called proxies to play along, so that peace could be restored. The United Wa State Army (UWSA) and National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA) participation of the 21CPC, from 31 August to 3 September in Naypyitaw, is the case in point.

Thus, a recent article in South China Morning Post which said that the United State is no match for China in this ensuing game is quite correct. The United State and West is far and China is just across the border and a big regional power, which is aiming to become a super power anytime soon.

Therefore, the recent Burma Army’s escalation of conflict in Kachin and Shan States doesn’t fit well into the holistic political consideration of Suu Kyi and the NLD.

An ideal planned scenario would be the all-inclusiveness participation of all EAOs, which China has  dutifully done to let its so-called proxies EAOs chip in, to be followed by nationwide peace negotiations, national reconciliation and development.

But the military’s thwarting of this noble scheme is questionable and one couldn’t help but think that it is deliberately keeping the war flames burning to demonstrate its hard power and to pressure the NLD regime to accept its line of thinking, which are non-inclusiveness participation of the EAOs and its ultimate plan of DDR implementation. The heart of the problem is, that it is not ready to become an equal partner negotiator, like the rest of the stakeholders, but determined to positioned itself above all others and pushes through its preconceived ideas through coercive hard power usage.

To sum up, the first priority of ending the war through negotiation is being thwarted by the military, while no one is sure if this is due to its commitment to hold on to power as a sole self-employed saviour of the nation or determined to see through its military and Bamar ethnocentrism aspirations and conviction. And in process, it is dictating its preconceived ideas to the NLD through its hard power implementation to hang on to power that it is accustomed to for more than fifty years, if not for anything else.

As for the NLD regime, it has to do a tight rope walking of maintaining neutrality and maximize the country’s interest so that it could deliver the goods to the public. But first the guns have to be silenced and it is not in the position to convince the military to stop the offensives, in order to fulfil the necessary implementation of genuine nationwide ceasefire; amendments of Framework for Political Dialogue (FPD) and Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA); all-inclusive signing of the NCA; state and region-level political dialogue; and holding the national-level political dialogue at the 21CPC, to determine the country’s future.

In short, whether all the deliberations of peace process could be smoothly conducted hinges on if the military would stop its senseless offensives first and agree to either a unilateral or bilateral nationwide ceasefire. Otherwise, it will be a vicious circle of waging war and talking peace, benefiting no one in a real sense, not even the military.

This article originally appeared on Shan Herald Agency for News (SHAN) on September 28, 2016