The concept of peace and dialogue in Myanmar remains a contentious topic, especially in light of the recent Ngwe Saung discussions led by Ko Mya Aye and his group. While a 7-point agreement was reached, some argue that these resolutions lack the depth needed to significantly advance the revolution. The release of political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, remains the sole impactful demand among them. However, the military’s track record raises doubts about its genuine willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.
Historically, the Myanmar military has avoided constructive discussions. In 2020, there was no effort to negotiate a peaceful transfer of power to the NLD, despite its landslide electoral victory. Instead, baseless allegations of electoral fraud were leveraged to justify the military coup in February 2021. The events that followed, including mass arrests of activists, intellectuals, and politicians, underscored the regime’s preference for repression over reconciliation.
Recent events further illustrate this trend. Airstrikes on civilian areas, including the Karen New Year celebration and villages in Loikaw, along with bombings in Anya and Phyu Township, highlight the military’s reliance on violence rather than dialogue. These actions starkly contrast with the rhetoric of peace, painting a picture of a regime seeking control through force rather than consensus.
While the Ngwe Saung discussions have sparked debates, it is essential to recognize the military’s strategic motivations. Allowing such gatherings may serve its interests, as similar support for the NUG or PDFs would result in swift arrests. Genuine peace talks require a fundamentally different approach, beginning with the unconditional release of political prisoners and acknowledgment of the 2020 election results. A roadmap to lasting peace would involve forming an interim government, drafting a new federal constitution, and addressing war crimes through independent investigations.
True peace in Myanmar will require more than performative dialogues. It demands structural changes, accountability, and the dismantling of systems that perpetuate violence. Until these conditions are met, calls for negotiation will remain hollow gestures, serving only to delay meaningful progress toward democracy and justice.
Leave a Comment