Myanmar’s subnational, or ethnic conflicts are among the world’s most enduring, posing significant challenges to national political reforms, economic growth, and human development.[1] Since the military takeover in February 2021, violence has spread to much of the country. The various ethnic conflicts in Myanmar have their own distinct histories and pathways, and yet their ongoing dynamics and long-term persistence are closely associated with the overall national political direction. Between 2010 and 2020, efforts were made to address these conflicts while also transforming the political environments towards democracy and a free-market economy. Understanding what happened and how conflict prevention efforts progressed during this period offers important lessons for the future in both Myanmar and other complex, conflict-affected environments.
For many in and outside of Myanmar, this was a time of great optimism. Peace dialogues took off, a key moment being the October 15, 2015 signing of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA).[2] A month later, the National League for Democracy and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi won the 2015 elections, and economic reforms began to bring rapid growth and new opportunities, particularly to urban communities.
But further progress towards peace proved to be elusive. Even before the military coup of February 2021, much of the earlier hope had dissipated as it gradually became clear that the fundamental problems perpetuating armed conflict in Myanmar had not been tackled. Commitment to the ceasefire was partly undermined by the military’s continued efforts to establish greater control in contested areas and the absence of some of the largest armed groups from the main process. The new civilian-led government that came to power after the 2015 election struggled to maintain momentum amid competing priorities. The Covid-19 pandemic slowed down an already stagnant process, and the 2021 military coup spelled the end of dialogue efforts for many ceasefire signatories. Despite these and many other shortcomings, the NCA process advanced conflict resolution and related political steps in unprecedented ways, creating a legacy that has built understanding and offers valuable lessons for future initiatives.
This study, titled International Peace Support and Effective Peacebuilding in Myanmar, aims to provide useful background, analysis, and recommendations so that future international peace support in Myanmar at an appropriate time, and in a suitable form, enables both conflict transformation and the establishment of sustainable civilian-led government. The study was directed and managed by The Asia Foundation with funding from the government of Canada’s Peace and Stabilization Operations Program.
Many existing studies address both historical and contemporary politics and conflict in Myanmar, but there have been very few critical analyses of the overall role of foreign policy and specifically of foreign aid in supporting conflict resolution in the country. Much independent information on donor support for peacebuilding, including many evaluations of key programs and projects, is not in the public domain. This research study builds an evidence base through interviews with national and international stakeholders who were and remain deeply involved in these efforts, combined with existing published and grey literature from academia and peacebuilding practice. It also draws on the observations and insights of the researchers themselves, all of whom have extensive experience of peacebuilding programs in Myanmar. The study builds on past research on conflict in Myanmar and across the region conducted by The Asia Foundation, including The Contested Areas of Myanmar (2017), Supporting the Transition (2018), The State of Conflict and Violence in Asia (2021), and a series of focused area studies.[3]
The study findings are divided into three main papers. The first and second papers were mainly researched and drafted by Simon Richards, independent consultant, with substantial further inputs from Adam Burke and Tabea Campbell Pauli of The Asia Foundation. The first paper, “The Context for Building Peace: Entrenched Challenges and Partial Reforms,” outlines the many contextual factors that are key to understanding the challenges, failures, and successes of various peacebuilding initiatives. The second, “Lessons from Foreign Assistance for Peacebuilding in Myanmar”, offers reflections and perspectives from stakeholders on the NCA and other peace initiatives. It draws practical lessons from an assessment of international peace support and related assistance to Myanmar, with a particular focus on the NCA process. It considers the implications of international efforts of various types for any future peace support for Myanmar or other complex environments, and is intended as a tool to inform potential engagement.
The third paper, “Women, Peace, and Security Funding Dynamics in Myanmar,” focuses specifically on women’s rights and gender equality in Myanmar’s peacebuilding efforts, researched and drafted by Khin Khin Mra and Cate Buchanan. The paper adds depth and insight to the other two, with detailed analysis of women’s meaningful participation and gender inclusion in the NCA process and related initiatives. All of the authors have extensive experience of conflict prevention and peacebuilding support in Myanmar. Drafts underwent a rigorous review process involving Myanmar and international experts.
Methods
Analysis is based on interviews as well as existing or secondary material.[4] Key informants, including ethnic leaders, international stakeholders, peace practitioners, advisors, and independent analysts and researchers, as well as civil society organizations involved in different aspects of the NCA process in Myanmar, were asked to reflect on their experiences and articulate aspects that in hindsight seem important, were missed opportunities, or might be approached differently in the future. Insights into successes and constructive support were also shared to document what and how solutions were achieved. Interviews were conducted confidentially, in person or virtually. Consultations did not include Burmese military perspectives due to the acute political sensitivities throughout the research period. For security reasons, a list of respondents’ names is not provided.
Interviewees were asked to provide data and examples where they could, to illustrate their reflections and opinions. Given the nature of the peace processes and respondents’ differing experiences, however, these perspectives are inevitably subjective, often open to various interpretations, sometimes speculative, and hard to verify. In addition, while common narratives did emerge around particular points of view, many important insights derive from experiences that cannot be easily triangulated. Due to the period under consideration, the breadth of the overall process, and the number of possible perspectives from stakeholders, this study does not pretend to be comprehensive.
Peer reviews and critical feedback sessions for this study with national and international experts who participated in and observed major peacebuilding efforts from 2010 to 2020 revealed that many of the key findings from the research continue to characterize international peace support efforts today. While the context on the ground and the circumstances around aid delivery are very different in 2024 than the years preceding the coup, many of the underlying dynamics, particularly around power and positioning, remain the same. This realization confirms that the lessons and recommendations contained in this study are highly relevant to the foreign donors and peacebuilders operating in Myanmar today, and can help to shape and improve their current and future engagements in the country.
The global context in the years after the 2021 coup is vastly different from the optimism and abundance of the 2010s, and future peace support interventions will likely have fewer resources and foreign expertise. There is a real risk that lessons from the past will not be taken into account. International security concerns have led to foreign aid priorities being increasingly defined around narrow domestic interests, rather than being driven by a careful assessment of what will work in the context. In those circumstances, there is a need for stronger partnerships and efforts to find common ground. International peace support actors will need evidence and examples of good practice from the context, together with strategic, cost efficient and creative approaches to ensure that the best ideas and solutions are brought to the fore. Prioritizing collaborative leadership and decision-making with Myanmar experts and stakeholders, through thoughtful and cautious ways of working, can lead to interventions that are appropriate and reflect the needs and aspirations of the populations on the ground.