“The Union long united must be divided and long divided must be united. Thus, it has ever been.”
If you are an avid follower and reader of Chinese history and literature, you may sense that the above line is a copy and twist from the opening line of the “Romance of Three Kingdoms.” The current political situation in Myanmar rather bears an uncanny resemblance to the warring state period in Chinese history. Here, the emperor is allegorically represented by Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing and the Sit Tat (Myanmar military), which cannot control its empire, the Union of Myanmar.
It is obvious that Min Aung Hlaing and the Sit Tat are in crisis. The “yellow turbans” – the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), People’s Defense Forces, and other resistance groups – are gaining ground. The Myanmar military has been facing military and political humiliations that it has not experienced since the 1950s, the earliest days in Myanmar’s long-running civil wars. Over the past year, it has lost major cities in the north, northeast, and west of the country, as well as two Regional Military Commands, which is unprecedented.
Despite its draconian forced conscription drive, the military is losing ground, equipment, and manpower on a daily basis. The Arakan Army is on the verge of complete liberation of Rakhine State in the west. The Kachin Independence Army is also conducting major offensives in northern Myanmar as we speak. Elsewhere in central Myanmar, the National Unity Government-led forces are slowly establishing their structures of governance, albeit with some flaws. Against this backdrop, the question of what follows the Spring Revolution – what a post-Sit Tat Myanmar might look like – has become a more pressing subject of discussion.
For years, the primary focus of Myanmar’s unending political discussion has been the establishment of federalism, a federal union, in the country. After all, preventing federalism was the main excuse for the 1962 coup by Ne Win that established the military’s dominant role in the country’s politics. Thus, most political conversations naturally revolve around what this federal system might look like and how it might function.
However, this author would like to argue that the political discussion in Myanmar today does not necessarily have to dwell on federalism. Indeed, the political developments in the country may already lead to the point that both the domestic political stakeholders and the international community need to contemplate a post-federal situation in Myanmar.
It is worth noting that Myanmar is the largest country in mainland Southeast Asia. It is also second only to Indonesia in terms of cultural and linguistic diversity. As such, the country can rightly be treated as a sub-region of its own within Southeast Asia. So far, however, these discussions have not taken account of the different, segmented, and fragmented pockets of political economy in the country. From the Wild West-like scam centers and casino cities and narco kingdoms in the borderlands to the industrial parks, commercial ports, commodity and stock markets in Yangon, no modern state has ever been able fully to establish its control over these political and economic forces. Muddying the picture further, the Myanmar military has acted as a pseudo-state, carving out its own share in the economy.
The tendency toward fragmentation is clear. On the political side, Arakan Army leader Tun Mrat Naing has repeatedly stated his desire for a loosely affiliated confederacy. He has openly declared that he intends to establish a unitary state system/administration in Rakhine State after the war, despite the existence of ethnic minority communities, especially the Rohingyas, which were displaced by the communal and military conflicts that plagued Rakhine State for almost two decades.
This is to say nothing of the United Wa State Army’s position as a de-facto independent state in eastern Myanmar, completely free, both politically and economically, from the central Myanmar state. It is also interesting to see how the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army will govern its newly captured territories in northeastern Shan State, and whether it will seek to create a similarly independent fief. Various EAOs have stated their desire for bottom-up federalism in the country as well. With all these political and economic complications arising, the author questions the feasibility of a “functional” federal arrangement in the country.
In this sense, it is interesting to note that almost all the multi-ethnic states or political unions that emerged in the early 20th century dissolved around the 70-year mark. The Soviet Union dissolved right before its 70th anniversary. Yugoslavia imploded violently just before its 75th birthday. Czechoslovakia also followed the same way, albeit in a more peaceful way than the former two. The current Myanmar state/political union is also encroaching upon this 70-year litmus test. In fact, Myanmar is currently taking this test now, in the author’s opinion.
Therefore, rather than trying to fix all of Myanmar’s problems at once, it would be wise for everyone to contemplate a scenario in which all the respective nations opt for something akin to Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Divorce.” The Myanmar state, despite all the human tragedies and humanitarian crises that it has created, is a political project that came out of the optimistic post-colonial idealism in the aftermath of World War II. However, the nations and the stakeholders involved in the country today have no reason to cling to such ideals if they have little chance of ever coming to fruition.
Rather than imploding or exploding violently after failed negotiations, all nations involved should have the option to leave the Union in a “Velvet Divorce”-like agreement. Given the course of the past seven decades of Myanmar’s history, a peaceful and structured dissolution is better than a fragile or forced unity. The National Unity Government, EAOs, and other de facto and de jure entities should start preparing for such scenarios. The goal should not be to impose a single model but to ensure that all peoples of Myanmar have a viable political future on their own terms.
The international community should also reconsider its approach, moving beyond federalism as the ultimate answer, and an irrational fear over the country’s balkanization. They should seriously acknowledge the potential emergence of new nation-states from Myanmar’s dissolution. Recognizing and engaging with these new realities could be crucial to fostering long-term stability in the region.
