Nyi Nyi Aung Soe, Htet Aung, 2017, International University of Japan
Abstract
This paper studies why Myanmar Peace Negotiation Process was dynamically triggered since 2011 and how far the policy formulating and decision making for those is running on the road map or political framework. This paper observes what the problems are challenging while negotiation on the political framework among the actors - the Government, Myanmar Armed Forces, and the Ethnic Armed Groups (EAGs) and shows how the foreign countries such as the United States, the neighbouring countries (China, Bangladesh, and Thailand) can influence on Myanmar Peace Process. This paper also explains what the differences between National Level Peace agreement and Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA). In terms of the current political climate, the government, however, enthusiastically emphasizes on National Reconciliation and Peace Process as the first prioritized, the international observers critique how the process brings the climax to a standstill or seems to be downward slope.
Keywords: Myanmar Peace Process, Conflict, Negotiation, Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), Political Framework, 21 Century Pinlong (Peace Conference)
1. Introduction
In 2011, Myanmar Peace Process was dynamically triggered by offering ceasefire talks to the ethnic armed organizations when the military regime handed over power to the new government headed by President U Thein Sein, the former Prime Minister and Retired General of the Armed Forces. After the President took his office, he urgently submitted the seven-step-road-map or political framework of Peace Process to the public and formed National Peace Central Committee(UPWC). The government’s policy towards the union peace process is flexible by implementing new approach because of unsuccessful practice and lesson learned in our history. Myanmar's peace process is highly complexed involving the large number of actors, mainly the government, the Myanmar Armed Forces, and the ethnic armed organizations(EAOs). Apart from the main stakeholders, the political parties, CBOs, the INGOs, and the non-state mediators are also supportive in ‘brokering, mediating and monitoring’ the peace talks as well as well implementing ceasefire agreements and policy advocacy, (Monitor, 2015) .
2. Overview of Myanmar Peace Process
The government and various ethnic armed groups are engaged in efforts to sign a nationwide ceasefire agreement. The government’s policy is towards the ethnic peace process and to build unity and strengthen the country. For achieving the reconsolidation, the peace process has been challenged by huge problems including not only political and military affairs but also economic and social issues. The government have been working to finalize all the ceasefires in 2016 by holding the political dialogue, however still not deal. So, how does ongoing the peace process base on their peace negotiation policy?
Since late 1940, the government and ethnic armed groups have been faced in numerous armed conflicts. Between these two faces, all occasional ceasefire agreements had failed to solve the essential questions of federal and autonomy. However, the government tried to get pure ceasefire agreements with several ethnic groups in the history, (Sørensen, 2014) .
In April 2009, according to the Myanmar 2008 constitution, the government broadcasted all ceasefire groups to transform into Border Guard Forces (BGF). Based on the transform process, all militia groups need to go under the command of the Myanmar military, (Wagley, 2015) . Consequences of the case, the government also began to step up their military pressure on these armed groups. Moreover, economic pressure was stepped up by the military government such as blocking Myanmar-China border trade through the some ethnic base camps, a crucial source of income for these ethnic armed groups. In fact, some of the ethnic armed groups transformed to BGF and some of the strong ethnic armed groups violated and disrupted to government and also Myanmar military had been faced militarizing situation.
During 2011 to 2015, based on the historical problems, the current government still tried to solve this problem by ‘new peace negotiation policy’. The government had recently concluded ceasefire agreements with 14 out of 16 ethnic armed groups (MPC, 2016). In fact, armed conflicts were sharply increased in the northern ethnic regions and used more powerful weapons. Unfortunately, the process of peace negotiation is still going base on the new peace negotiation policy. However, the government trying to have to success and try to create a milestone in the Myanmar’s history.
3. Literature Review
The ‘Five Streams’ metaphor views an important step in the direction and, indeed, it is part of larger efforts on our behalf to think about the many ways in which policy studies can continue to use metaphors to nudge forward our understanding of public policy, (Howlett, 2015) . In this context, it is clear and well understood that traditional cycle/stages approaches are not able to cope with the complexities and vagaries of policy process. Three stream agenda-setting model can adopt a limited extent. Five stream metaphor is much better placed than the traditional cycle or the stages and streams metaphor to accommodate aspects of agency, power, ideology turbulence and complexity. Policy makers have formal decision-making powers and a formal ‘steering’ capacity, but they must not exercise absolute power over destinations, (Placeholder1) .
Five stream metaphor is indeed a metaphor and not a formal ‘model of everything’. It is also linear. All political systems contain the basic ingredients of the five stream model (five streams, ‘captain of the ship’[1], destination/policy settlements) and there is sufficient flexibility to address dominant influences and alternations in course. Finally, our discussion concentrates on policy formation and decision making, out of ‘agenda setting’ (Howlett, 2015) .
4. Research Question
This paper studies why Myanmar Peace Negotiation Process was dynamically triggered since 2011 and how far the policy formulating and decision making for those is running on the road map or political framework.
5. Methodology
Policy stages / cycles and Multiple Streams have been criticized (lack of ‘real world’ engagement with agency, power, ideology, turbulence and complexity). Multiple streams (only focus on agenda-setting with limited results). The article seeks to explore and advance the opportunities for combining both stages / cycles and Multiple Streams and applying two policy to the policy-formation and decision-making stages of policy making. The article argued that five stream confluence model provides the highest analytical value. The article examine briefly the values and limits of both metaphors, (Howlett, 2015) .
How it can help capture some of the more nuanced features of public policy, including policy strategies and styles as well as multilayered policy-formation process leading to varieties of different policy outcomes. The policy involves policy making as sequence in which critical confluence and distribution points among policy streams are linked to specific ‘stages’ of the policy process in a cycle model. The starting point for this model is Kingdon’s three streams (problems, policies, politics), (Howlett, 2015) . Confluence point I is precisely along the lines (Kingdon suggested), when the three streams converge at the agenda-setting stage. This convergence is also the start of policy formation, where the streams converge into a ‘whirlpool’, (Howlett, 2015) -constitution a period of initial strategic appraisal by policy makers.
The policy maker consider how to proceed, whether their initial assumption about the ‘problem’ remain valid. The end of the appraisal phase is marked (IA) that constitutes the beginning of the consolidation phase of policy formation and the configuration of the various streams. The three initial agenda-setting streams (problems, policies, politics) are joined by two further streams. The first is a process stream, designed to examine options, support authoritative decisions. The second is a programme stream, designed to calibrate new programme instruments and integrate them with established ones. Further confluence and sub-confluence point are possible with each confluence point capable of bringing something different (such as new actors, new agenda-setting streams, new tactics) to the flow of events and each intersection point representing a ‘window’ in Kingdon’s sense, (Howlett, 2015) .
Last or Following policy formation is the decision making phase, which commences with a further ‘whirlpool’ of appraisal (also potentially turbulent). Policy maker begin to focus their attention on how they have come (e.g., in terms of available policy alternatives, feedback from stakeholders), how to proceed towards a final decision or decisions. The appraisal phase ends with a sub-confluence point IIA, which leads into a final consolidation phase where the dominant stream and all the other streams are configured to flow towards a final policy settlement (decisions), (Howlett, 2015) .
6. Stage 1: Agenda Setting
6.1 Social and Economic Issues
In Myanmar, the social issues is the important problem in nationwide ceasefire agreement, such as religious, different perspective (Smith, 2007). These facts was caused the conflict among the governments and ethnic armed groups. The other problem is the sharing of the natural resources among the government and ethnic armed organizations. In Myanmar case, the government and ethnic groups are competition want to control of strategic and commercial interests, such as strategic hills, highways, hydropower dams, and oil and gas pipelines. The government’s attempt to clamp down on economic activities by ethnic armed organizations such as logging.
6.2 Democratic Reform
In 2011, Myanmar was large changed of the political, due to the constitution (Hlaing, 2012). After 2010 election, the new democratic government tried to get peace for all regions between the army and ethnic armed groups. President U Thein Sein was agreed to negotiate with ethnic armed organization for NCA. The government changed the political upon the ethnic armed groups and invited these groups to agree the ceasefire. The main changing facts of Myanmar democratic reform is the continuous work for get peace among the organizations. The government founded two main groups, which are Union peace central committee (UPCC) and Union peace-making work committee (UPWC) for negotiation with the ethnic armed groups.
6.3 Regime Change
In 2011, Myanmar has been changed the military regime to democratization, so the new government continues the transition to democracy after 50 years of military rule, democracy defining challenge now is to make peace process (Bünte, 2011). The process of the peace, the government and army permitted the ethnic armed organizations to organize and create the border guard forces but all of the armed forces shall be under the command and control of defense services. So, some of the ethnic group do not agree under the command of defense services.
6.4 Agenda Setting
The Myanmar army and ethnic armed organizations conflict has been started on nearly 1960. In 2011, the government changed the political reform in terms of 2008 constitution. The main problem of the two side’s negotiation is the border guard forces. So the government organized the negotiation teams to discuss with the ethnic armed groups. The central government announced 2011s peace plan included three facts; “(1) enter the legal fold (disarm and transform into BGF/PMF, i.e. submit to Myanmar army control), (2) Set up political parties to contest elections and (3) Set up business”[2]. After discussion with two sides, some of the armed groups do not like this plan to serve the under command and control of defense services. The government negotiated these group but some of the conflict was still happened these groups and army with wars. The window opportunities was emerged in this stage and reached the agenda setting of the Myanmar peace process. So the government founded the definition of the problem and tried to solve these conflict problem with the evolution of peace plan in 2012.The central government 2012 peace plan consists three facts; “(1) State level ceasefire, (2) Union level ceasefire and (3) Create political parties to contest elections and enter parliament to amend the constitution” (Monitor, 2013) . In 2012, the central government announced the 7-step roadmap of the Myanmar peace and national reconciliation. The main facts of 7-step roadmap are-
a. Implementation
b. Parliament Approve
c. Sign Union Accord
d. Union Conference
e. Political Dialogue
f. Draft Framework
g. Sign in NCA
So, Union peace central committee (UPCC) and Union peace-making work committee (UPWC) was implemented these roadmap for representative of the central government. Due to the peace process, the central govern announced the peace plan of the 2013. This plan contain three major facts such as “(1) Nationwide ceasefire agreement, (2) Negotiations to agree framework for political dialogue and (3) Create political parties to contest elections and parliament to amend the constitution”[3].
On the other hand, the ethnic armed groups organized and announced the ethnic peace plan with the discussion among all of ethnic groups. In 2011, the ethnic armed organizations peace plan included three facts; (1) Political talk (amend the constitution to ensure ethnic self-determination), (2) Agreement on federal Union and (3) Approval and ratification by parliament. After negotiation between the UPWC and nationwide ceasefire coordination team (NCCT), the ethnic armed group issued the peace plan 2013. In 2013 peace plan comprised six-points, “(1) Host a meeting with community based organizations (CBOs) and ethnic armed organization (EAOs), (2) a meeting between government and EAO representatives monitored by international community, (3) referenda in each ethnic state to ratify the agreement reached, (4) a meeting with all ethnic people to talk about peace, (5) tripartite dialogue between government, EAOs and (6) democratic groups, and implementation of agreement reached within a set time-frame”[4].
The representative of NCCT announced the expected peace plan for 2013. These plan consists four major facts; (1) drafting the political framework, (2) nationwide ceasefire agreement, (3) political dialogue, and (4) national accord. The central government and negotiation teams have been tried to get the nationwide ceasefire agreement with discuss and negotiate each other. After 2013 meeting, the both sides agreed in principle the following statements such as nationwide ceasefire agreement and negotiations to agree framework for political dialogue.
7. Stage 2: Policy Formulation
7.1 Political Stream
The entire policy formation process is driven by a political decision making to pursue a particular policy ‘solution’, (Howlett, 2015) . In 2014, Myanmar political reform is still ongoing under democratization process and all stakeholders have been actively involving in the peace process following ‘the seven-steps-road-map’, (Placeholder1) . Especially, the National Ceasefire Coordination Team(NCCT) representing the ethnic armed organizations(EAOs) and the Union Peace Working Committee (UPWC) representing the government could negotiate and draft to sign in Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in details.
Despite, both teams held several meetings and discussed specific issues with multilayer groups and within organizations. In addition, the political party leaders and representatives of NGOs - Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society Organizations(CSOs), and INGOs - PSI, PDSG, EBO, IPSG have been also indirectly involved in the peace process. Foreign countries and INGOs have been supporting the process by assistance financially and technically, (Howlett, 2015) . However, some issues are very sensitive and deeply debatable and some political factors delayed the peace process. For instance, ‘new EAGs’[5] to be recognized as the dialogue partners, conflicts between ethnic community and religious community.
7.2 Policy Stream
Policy making is driven by a preferred solution of policy makers/agents, (Howlett, 2015) . In 2014, UPWC and NCCT have negotiated and agreed with the peace plan or new political framework. Many people confuses ceasefire and peace in Myanmar Peace Process and even some media incorrectly report a ceasefire agreement as a peace agreement. Actually, the ceasefire is a part of peace process and the first phase to approach the union peace accord. The government policy of the peace process can be cauterized by The representatives from both sides drafted the following statements of the peace plan in 2014;
a. NCA[6] Signing
b. Drafing political framework
c. Political dialogue
d. Union Convention
e. Signing Union Accord
f. Interim Arrangement
In fact, a ceasefire(NCA) is a temporary agreement of termination of fighting in which both sides have to agree to suspend firing and offensive operations. A ceasefire may be violated by some reasons or decision of one side to dishonor the agreement. Therefore, all stakeholders have necessarily accepted to establish peace accord. It is more concrete and meaningful rather than the ceasefire. Basically, ceasefire agreement is understandable as the principle of peacebuilding because ceasefire agreement secures the further advencemence of peace process. The general meaning of peace is a period of harmony between different social groups that is characterized by a lack of violence and aggressive behavior and a freedom from fear of violence.
The process stream is leading and guiding the agenda-setting in policy formulating by comprising and prioritizing the individual dynamic issues not to differ from original setting where there can be multiple and complex sources of problems and no clear explanation to better solution, (Howlett, 2015) . However, addressing an issue that achieving some form of outcome is the key goal and all the other streams are restricted by this process, (Howlett, 2015) .
Since 2011, the government has been initiated the new approach for peace building by offering peace talks to EAOs without any pressure to arms release before any discussions. Consequently, in 2012, both UPWC and NCCT accepted 6 points out of government proposed ‘Three Steps Peace Plan’, (Monitor, 2015) . In 2013, seven points out of 23 points were agreed among the discuss partners peace and national reconciliation as follows;
a. Signing NCA[9]
b. Drafing Framework
c. Political dialogue
d. Union Conference
e. Signing Union Accord
f. Parliament Approve
g. Implementation
Out of the aforementioned statements, the dominant policies are debatable federal system, DDR[10] versus SSR[11], federal constitution versus 2008 constitution, and federal army versus existing army.
7.4 Problem stream
According to the the 'seven-steps-roadmap’ of national peace process formulatated in 2011, all the EAOs who were signatory and non-signitory in bilateral agreements for ceasefire with the government joined at the discussion meetings since 2011. Later, all the problems to be compromised were discussed in detail between each other and finalized the common agreements in 2014. today is supposed to be in the decision making process. During the discussions, the main issues between the ethnics and with the government were resouce sharing versus territory disputes, Self-determination versus Federalism, Constitution reforming versus renewing , Federal Army versus existing Army, Government Allied Ethnic Border Guard Force versus Ethnic Revolution Army.
7.5 Programme stream
The programme instrument would also be the key stream as it is directed towards a specific solution. The aforementioned seven steps roadmap for peace and national reconciliation is the main frame/ the skeleton of peace process towards national goal. In 2014, there were one of the outcomes of the table talks peace negotiation process that the final draft of Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement have been accepted in principle between UPWC and NCCT after adopting the supplements in the agenda such as SSR and DDR proposed by Myanmar Armed Forces representatives. The followings are the seventh outlines of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, (Monitor, 2013)
a. Leaders of government and ethnic armed organizations(EAOs) to sign the NCA
b. Representatives of government and EAOs together to draft the political framework within 60 days of signing the NCA
c. Representatives of government and EAOs to start national-level political dialogue within 90 days
d. Union Peace Convention to be held in accordance with the outcome of the political dialogue
e. Leaders of government and ethnic armed organizations(EAOs) to sign the Union Accord
f. Myanmar Union Parliament to approve the Union Accord
g. Implementation of the Union Accord (SSR[12] implementation)
8. Stage 3: Decision Making (Policy Settlement)
8.1 Political Stream
Myanmar political reform is still ongoing and swimming in the democratization stream after the NCA was signed on 15th October 2015. Before that, from March 2014 to March 2015, there were seven times meeting between the government and EAOs representatives,. The new ‘election’ was held in 8th December, 2015 when the mainstream party, the ‘National League for Democracy (NLD)’ led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is the daughter of national leader General Aung San, was landslide victory and the international media recognized as no other free and fair election was held the same as 2015 in Myanmar history, (Sein, 2016) .
Despite, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of ruling party and the State Councellor, publicized that the National Reconciliation and Peace is the main goal of NLD government. Consequently, National Peace Conference(21st Century Panglong) was held in Nay Pyi Taw on 31 August 2016 and the EAOs whoever signatory or non-signatory were attending at the conference, (AFP, 2016) .
8.2 Policy Stream
In 2015, the former government had been continuing the peace process and the policy implementation of the NCA agreement had been handed over the new NLD government. The new government reorganized the Myanmar Peace Central Committee (MPCC) into National Reconciliation Peace Committee (NRPC) (Monitor, 2016) . Their vision is to engage and negociate for National Reconciliation and Peace with all the ethnic Armed Organizations in peaceful way or on the table to get eternal peace. The State Counsellor, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, paved as the second step that she invited all the participants to attend the 2nd session of National Peace Conference (21st Century Panglong) which is coming soon. (Yingqiu, 2017) . Apart from the government and EAOs representatives, all the organizations including the INGOs and NGOs are welcomed to participate at the conference.
8.3 Process Stream
According to the the 'seven-steps-roadmap’ of national peace process formulatated in 2011, today is supposed to be in the decision making process. In addition, during the peace process, all the EAOs who were signatory and non-signitory in bilateral agreements for ceasefire with the government joined at the discussion meetings since 2011. Later, all the problems to be compromised were discussed in detail between each other and finalized the common agreements in 2014, then, signed in 2015 but not all. Signing NCA is to be legal protection and reinstatement of all previous bilateral agreements, to be mutually respected, to be no longer clashes are blamed on the EAOs, and to be an official position in the political dialogue.
However, peace negociation teams from both sides have been contuning the implementation process of NCA recognition by signatories. There are a lot of procedure have to be done in the future. However, after the NCA has signed, the next steps were carried out, for example, setting the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) and Union Peace Dialogue Joint Committee (UPDJC) for SSR[13]/DDR[14] process and peace conference. In 2016, the new government held the National Peace Conference 21st Century Panglong) for the first time after they have started their tunure.
8.4 Problem Stream
The communal violence between the Rakhine Ethnic community and Muslim Community in western Myanmar is now in danger because the crisis came out of social issues based on the ideology conflict between internationalism and nationalism. Government is trying to fine the solution and balance this issue not only for local community but also for international community and it will take times to handle cleaverly.
Another problem is still ongoing the civil war. Alternatively, although the signatory Ethnic Armed Organizations(EAOs) are following the NCA agreement outlines and processing as procedures for local development projects with the government. On the other hand, the non-signatory Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) are not recognition NCA and still fighting against Tatmataw (the government Armed Forces troops) in north-eastern shan state along China Territorial border. Yun Sun highlighted the peace process have been delayed because of mismanagement and inadequate response of the new government during their tunure and the peace talks seems to be silent, (Sun, 2017) . The reason why not signing NCA are ongoing government military offensives in the ethnic area, the current NCA violates non-signatories inclusivity and led to fighting them.
8.5. Programme stream
The programmes how to implement are already included in 7th Steps-road-map and NCA. Howerever, the government has changed and the political agenda has been rescheduling according to the new policy formation (Monitor, 2016) . Now, the programme will be on as follows;
a. Step 1: signing the NCA in 18 November 2015.
b. Step 2: Framework for political Dialogue (Outlines: 7th Chapter).
d. Step 4: Prosed Union Peace Conference ( Two conferences were held during 2016).
e. Step 5: Prosed Union Accord ( Proposed: EAO summit and NDSC top level meeting)
9. Discussion and implication
In our point of views, the Kingdon’s theory has weak point which is all streams need to meet together to have the window opportunities to change the policy. Although the government has solutions to solve the problems and is holding convinent policy for the problem, if the political conditions is not in favour, the government has to wait to get good political conditions to applied its holding cards. Moreover, the Kingdon’s theory will give the solution which is not best for the current situation but the optimum solution which is consistent with the favour of political situation because the theory needs the coincidence of three streams. Among the three streams, the political streams might be the most difficult stream to get the better chance for the window opportunities.
The other weak point is that the theory is emphasized basically on agenda-setting and the priority of the issue in the agenda-setting is variable based on the duration of the issue. The priority of issue may be changed because it is reconstructed or abandoned if the issue is exited for long times. The other problem is that the diversion of issue based on the streams. The issue may be based on the problem stream at first, but the course of issue may be changed when the political condition affects on the problem. Therefore, the causal fact may be changed based on the circumstances and situations. The variety of probabilities of three streams may be difficult to get the desired opportunitiy to change the policy. The government has to considered these fact to make convenient policy for people.
The multiple streams approach is not enough to capture the complex institutional milieu in which agenda flow is situated. Agenda flow within the environments of complexity mentioned above (contention, fragmentation, and uncertainty) is also a product of factors such as the material aspects of the issue concerned, attributes of the immediate community, rules (formal and informal legal frameworks), and the characteristics of actors involved.
In fact, we will discuss the Myanmar Peace Process by applying the multiple-stream. In 2011, Myanmar Peace Process was dynamically triggered by offering ceasefire talks to the ethnic armed organizations when the military regime handed over power to the new government headed by President U Thein Sein. In 2015, the former government had been continuing the peace process and the policy implementation of the NCA agreement had been handed over the new NLD government. The new NLD government led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, reorganized the Myanmar Peace Central Committee (MPCC) into National Reconciliation Peace Committee (NRPC). Their vision is to engage and negociate for National Reconciliation and Peace with all the ethnic Armed Organizations in peaceful way or on the table to get eternal peace. According to the the 'seven-steps-roadmap’ of national peace process formulatated in 2011, today is supposed to be in the decision making process.
However, the communal violence between the Rakhine Ethnic community and Muslim Community in western Myanmar is now in danger because the crisis came out of social issues based on the ideology conflict between internationalism and nationalism. Another problem is still ongoing the civil war. Although the signatory Ethnic Armed Organizations(EAOs) are following the NCA agreement outlines, the non-signatory Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) are not recognition NCA and still fighting against Tatmataw (the government Armed Forces troops). The reason why not signing NCA are ongoing government military offensives in the ethnic area, the current NCA violates non-signatories inclusivity and led to fighting them.
10. Conclusion
Myanmar Peace Process is very complex and a lot of actors are being involved in the process. Furthermore, there are a lot of challenges or difficulties such as no permanent spokesman recognized by both sides, still lack of transparency, internally invisible problems from both sides, foreign countries like the United States, the neighbouring countries (China, Bangladesh, and Thailand) indirectly influence on Myanmar Peace Process. However, on the other hand, the international organizations supports National Reconciliation and Peace center in technical assistance as well as budgets. In terms of the current political climate, the government, however, enthusiastically emphasizes on National Reconciliation and Peace Process as the first prioritized, the international observers critique how the process brings the climax to a standstill or seems to be downward slope.
References
BNI. (2015). Deciphering Myanmar's Peace Process: A Reference Guide 2015. yangon: Burma News International.
Bünte, M. (2011). Burma's Transition to 'Disciplined Democracy': Abdication or Institutionalization of Military Rule?
Hlaing, K. Y. (2012). Understanding recent political changes in Myanmar. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 34(2), 197-216.
Howlett, M. M. (2015). Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 419-434. European Journal of Political Research.
Jolliffe, K. (2015). Ethnic armed conflict and territorial administration in Myanmar. The Asia Foundation. Available at: http://asiafoundation. org/publication/ethnic-armed-conflict-and-territorial-administration-in-myanmar-full-report.
Sein, C. C. (2016). INSTITUTIONS IN MYANMAR’S 2015 ELECTION The Election Commission, International Agencies, and the Military. Conflict in Myanmar: War, Politics, Religion, 163. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Smith, M. (2007). State of strife: the dynamics of ethnic conflict in Burma (Vol. 36). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Sørensen, L. T. (2014). Who brings peace to Myanmar(Doctoral dissertation).
Wagley, R. A. (2015). Myanmar’s Peace Process: Mediating Historic Distrust. The National Bureau of Asian Research.
[1] Captain of the ship – the policy/ decision maker drives policy formulation but rather monitoring.
[2] Deciphering Myanmar’s Peace Process: A reference guide 2013.
[3] Deciphering Myanmar’s Peace Process: A reference guide 2013.
[5] New ethnic armed Organizations - Ta’ang National Liberation Army(TNLA), Myanmar democratic Allience Army(MDAA), and Arakan Army(AA)
[15] NRPC- National Reconciliation and Peace Committee
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete