New AC4 Research to Explore the Complex Challenges to Sustainable Peace in Burma
Stephen Gray
Addressing the East Asia Economic Forum last week, democracy icon Aung Sung Suu Kyi’s comments hinted of the systemic shift currently underway in Burma, or Myanmar as it’s otherwise known. Speaking of her experience of flying over Bangkok on her first trip outside of the country in more than twenty years she said “I couldn’t believe how much things have changed, there were so many lights”. The comment spoke volumes of how relatively stunted Burma is after decades of economic mismanagement and repressive military rule, yet the audience was delighted. That this incredible woman who spent 15 of the last 24 years under house arrest is now a member of her nation’s parliament and able to travel freely is testament to how far the country has progressed politically in the last year. But as Burma turns outwards towards the world and back onto the international stage, the instability, complexity and sheer energy required to sustain the positive progress is coming into full view. This is the first of several posts from Burma about a research project that is exploring the potential outcomes of the change that is underway. Funded by the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict and Complexity (AC4), the project will ask, broadly, what are the opportunities and obstacles to sustainable peace in Burma?
Such a simple question obscures the baffling complexity that stirs beneath Burma’s surface headlines of ceasefire agreements, democratization, release of political prisoners and lifting of sanctions. While the project will focus in particular on the peace negotiations between ethnic minority groups and the military/ethnic majority government, the process and outcome of the negotiations cannot be authentically explored without considering related issues of governance, social justice, regional dynamics, employment, administrative capacity, human security, and economic instability. These challenges are highly interdependent, as are the actors with a stake in the process. No less than fifteen parties have signed ceasefire agreements with the government in the last year, yet these parties are to greater or lesser extents splintered into different constituencies, just like the government, civil society, democratic opposition and powerful business interests that also have a stake in the outcomes.
Yet complex systems such as this often settle into stable patterns over time. Dynamical systems theory – the paradigm pioneered at Teacher’s College that the research methodology is based upon – has proven useful in understanding how complex systems settle into intractable conflicts which resist change. In this context the researchers hope the theory can offer insight on how recent positive progress can be broadened, and stabilized over time.
But for now the system is very unstable, which is highlighted by the unintended consequences that have emerged as the system awakens from decades of underdevelopment, repression and simmering conflict. Buoyed by a newfound ability to speak out against their government, thousands of protestors have taken to the streets in recent weeks to protest against the electricity shortages that plague the country’s urban areas. The government responded by buying electricity generators to sure electricity supply, yet the threat of civil unrest from a populace impatient for positive progress remains. In rural parts of the country thousands of gold miners are on strike because of the threat of job loss. The culprit is the foreign investment now possible since sanctions were lifted in August, which promises to mechanize the country’s gold mines and leave the unskilled miners out of work. Threats such as these urged Aung San Syu Kyi to warn against “reckless optimism” on the part of the international community during her speech in Bangkok.
Similar unintended consequences are possible in the peace process. What happens if some groups achieve better agreements than others? What happens if the armed groups that negotiate the agreements don’t represent the genuine interests of their ethnic constituencies? What happens if peace dividends aren’t delivered to an impatient population in time? What happens if peace isn’t in the best interest of powerful local, national, or regional actors?
Over the next two months two researchers will ask questions like these to a range of government, civil society, bilateral, multilateral, business interest and ethnic groups with a stake in the peace process. Firstly, the researchers will map the motives, relationships, power dynamics between relevant actors. A second methodology will map the issues at stake in the process, looking for underlying patterns that might explain why the system has or might evolve over time. Both approaches will then look towards the relationships and actions that might increase the probability that peace processes produce comprehensive, sustainable, positive outcomes. Furthermore, by comparing the maps/perspectives of different stakeholders, areas of convergence and divergence might reveal relationships or actions that might alter the probability of sustainable peace.
We arrived in the Yangon’s bustling, grimy, former colonial capital of Yangon yesterday. The taxi driver from the airport seemed excited about the future. “Democracy lady is in government now. We’re very happy,” he said. He looked less impressed however when I told him he was paying 20 times more for mobile phone credit than they do in neighboring Thailand. “No problem,” he responded with a typical full-faced, Burmese grin. “Democracy lady will go to Thailand and fix it.”
Very enjoyable read Stephen. Good luck with the research!