BANGKOK – In the aftermath of last week’s destructive earthquake registering at 7.7 magnitude in Myanmar, temporary ceasefires declared by conflicting factions have surfaced, marking an unusual pause in the hostilities that have ravaged the nation since 2021. This ongoing struggle has claimed thousands of lives and displaced over 3 million individuals.
Experts are optimistic that these ceasefires, first initiated by opponents of the military regime and later reciprocated by military forces, could serve as a stepping stone towards long-lasting peace. A recent report by the Institute for Strategy and Policy – Myanmar argues that the calamity presents a unique opportunity to foster unity among adversaries, lessen violence, and potentially pave the way for enduring peace initiatives.
“Even if there is merely a tactical agreement to scale back on hostilities, it sets a noteworthy example,” commented the think tank based in Thailand. However, reports of new skirmishes cropped up by Thursday.
The ongoing conflict in Myanmar began when the military seized control in 2021, overthrowing the democratically-elected government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, triggering armed resistance and subsequent civil war. Despite having the upper hand in terms of sheer numbers and firepower, the military government led by Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing has struggled to maintain control, losing significant territories to pro-democracy forces and ethnic minority groups long fighting for autonomy.
The shadow government, known as the National Unity Government, announced last Saturday that its military wing, the People’s Defense Force, would halt offensive operations in earthquake-stricken regions for two weeks to aid relief efforts. The People’s Defense Force primarily engages in defensive maneuvers and surprise attacks. Similarly, on Tuesday, the Three Brotherhood Alliance, comprising three potent ethnic insurgent groups, declared a month-long ceasefire, seeking to solidify their territorial claims in northeastern and western Myanmar.
Meanwhile, the military, accused of continuing aerial assaults post-disaster, proclaimed its own unilateral ceasefire on Wednesday night to facilitate rescue and recovery efforts, extending until April 22. While all parties reserved the right to self-defense, other ethnic factions like the Kachin Independence Organization also initiated ceasefires subsequently.
The military’s decision to suspend hostilities coincides with Min Aung Hlaing’s attendance at a regional conference in Thailand, a significant step in his quest for international legitimacy. His presence aims to bolster his standing, especially since Western nations have largely ostracized him due to the 2021 coup and ongoing human rights infringements. This marked Min Aung Hlaing’s first official visit to a non-allied nation since participating in a regional meeting in Indonesia in 2021. Although the ceasefires offered some moral ground to the resistance, activists continued to protest his involvement in the Bangkok summit.
The potential for peace remains debatable. The report from the Institute for Strategy and Policy highlights that the earthquake’s repercussions might spur prolonged civil unrest. Nonetheless, a “tactical de-escalation” could improve logistics for earthquake relief, protect civilians, and facilitate local and international aid flows, demonstrating a humanitarian commitment.
For a “strategic de-escalation,” confidence-building measures are essential, such as establishing safe zones, humanitarian corridors, and coordinated aid management by conflicting parties. However, achieving such an outcome remains highly improbable given historical precedents.
The military’s historical responses to natural disasters, such as the severe Cyclone Nargis in 2008 and Cyclone Mocha in 2023, often involved tightening control and increased oppression, dimming hopes for peace.
Ilan Kelman, a professor specializing in disasters and health at University College London, remarks that historical instances of “disaster diplomacy” offer little evidence of sustained success, either between nations or within states. Past examples include the Philippines, where frequent natural calamities led to temporary ceasefires but not lasting conflict resolution. Similarly, the peace treaty reached in Indonesia’s Aceh province post-2004 tsunami was largely due to ongoing negotiations rather than the disaster itself.
Kelman concludes that meaningful peace processes often stem from international diplomatic pressure or mediation, not from natural disasters or aid diplomacy attempts, indicating that governmental commitment to citizen welfare and peace is paramount.