In early June leaders from the Karen National Union (KNU) met with President Thein Sein and Burma's armed forces Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing to discuss the country's ongoing peace process. The oft-discussed 'growing friendship' between Naypyidaw and the KNU – Burma's oldest ethnonationalist insurgency movement that long fought for secession – still puzzles foreign and domestic observers, many of whom were taken by surprise when both parties agreed to a ceasefire in early 2012.
Since then, Burma's new semi-civilian rulers and a seemingly pragmatic KNU leadership have been deluged with praise for championing a peace process that, in the wake of democratic reforms, was expected to make natural progress. Yet shortly after the latest round of handshakes, soldiers from both sides reportedly clashed on 13 and 14 June in Huaypha. What could be interpreted as an accident or misunderstanding (both sides blame the other for initiating hostilities) was, however, the predictable result of a deeply flawed peace process that has been driven by elite business interests rather than by a desire to address the root causes of a conflict that is more than six decades old.
The current situation in Karen State mirrors the pitfalls of a 1994 armistice between the Junta and the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO). Despite its eventual collapse in 2011, observers of the 17-year-long ceasefire noted a remarkable rapprochement between the erstwhile foes that resulted in a relationship of pragmatic cooperation in exploiting the area's vast natural riches, which include jade, gold and teak. Ostensible stability, moreover, enabled neighbouring China to construct large hydropower dams as well as gas and oil pipelines in order to develop its landlocked Yunnan province. Since the breakdown of the ceasefire in 2011, fierce fighting has displaced more than 100,000 civilians in the country's far north.
The spoils of peace
During the years in which the ceasefire was observed, elites of both sides negotiated business deals behind closed doors that primarily enriched themselves. At the same time, Burma's junta tabooed any discussion of the root causes of conflict, namely, socio-economic marginalisation, political discrimination against minorities and widespread human rights abuses. This situation – which one observer referred to as 'ceasefire capitalism' – negatively affected the legitimacy of the insurgents among local communities. It also gave rise to a new faction that was disenchanted with the old guard's corrupt dealings and was much less willing to compromise on political demands. Now led by young officers, the KIO's ethnonationalist agenda and revolutionary spirit has once again come to the fore. Similar developments can be witnessed occurring within the KNU, whose new leadership is remarkably secretive about the actual issues being discussed with the government. Many Karen civilians, as well as some KNU leaders themselves, suspect this ceasefire process to be driven primarily by business interests.