Ceasefire groups on cross roads

Over a 15 year period over 15 armed ethnic groups in Burma reached ceasefire agreements with the ruling military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The groups signed the pact with different political objectives. Despite being aware of the separate strategies of the groups the SPDC did sign ceasefire agreements. Some groups surrendered to the junta and the SPDC recognized them as ceasefire groups or 'ethnic peace organizations'.

Only a few organizations, like the New Mon State Party (NMSP), the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) and Shan armed groups fighting for greater autonomy and the establishment of a federal union in Burma signed a ceasefire pact with the SPDC for a 'political dialogue'. But many small groups with limited political ideology were just targeting 'business activities' while dealing with the junta.

The strategy of the SPDC towards the ceasefire groups was quite clear. The regime did not have plans for a political dialogue with these groups at all. It adopted a systematic plan to assimilate them by offering business opportunities, weakening their political ideology, and alienating them from their own people. The bottom line was to bring them to a situation where they would surrender their arms to the Burmese Army under the agenda of 'working for peace'.

The leaders of some ceasefire groups amassed wealth cornering business opportunities from the regime. There has been a huge gap in terms of assets between the leaders and their followers. More and more followers left the organizations, and finally only opportunists remain in some ceasefire groups.

Probably before the 2010 general elections, the regime will mount pressure on these ceasefire groups to surrender their arms or put their armies under the Burmese Army's command. It is only then that the junta will allow group leaders to contest the elections. In the manipulated elections, the ceasefire group's leaders will be elected as MPs to local parliaments in the ethnic States.

However, some ceasefire groups with a semblance of political ideology face an uphill task to decide on the surrender of arms and contest the elections as a political party under the SPDC's militarized Constitution. Some ceasefire groups are likely to break the ceasefire while many leaders may not go back to the revolt they had started. A split among ceasefire groups is likely.

Extension of existing civil war and an unstable situation in various ethic areas will be the order of the day if the regime refuses to go for a political settlement with ceasefire groups. The people in the frontier areas will again suffer from gross human rights violation as a result of ceasefire pacts being broken.