Myanmar's Long Road to National Reconciliation (44 page)

One legacy of the decades of armed conflict, isolation, and repression is the limited presence of social capital in society. Trust between individuals and groups at many levels of society is lacking, and, of particular note, trust
within
many identity groups is also lacking. Rigid adherence to hierarchy and patronage systems — a common feature of Myanmar society — leaves little room for genuine dialogue and leads to feelings of threat and exclusion, often resulting in marginalization and fragmentation. It is critical to understand the systemic dynamics which contribute to fragmentation of Myanmar society, and not attribute it too easily and singularly to the “divide and rule” policy of those in power. These dynamics permeate many levels and spheres within Myanmar society. Only when one understands these dynamics and accepts responsibility for the spheres where one has influence or control, can actions be taken to counter destructive practices and to begin to build social capital.

Although Myanmar is unique and has its own set of complex dynamics, it may be instructive to consider three situations of protracted, destructive conflict where dramatic changes have been realized.

In light of the positive relationship between France and Germany today, it may be easy to forget that this relationship has a history of being very contentious and destructive. But as students of European history know all too well, this positive relationship cannot be taken for granted. The transformation of the Franco-German relationship was accomplished through a very deliberate and comprehensive effort on the part of leaders and private citizens of the two countries as well as by strong support from other interested parties in Europe and the United States.

In describing the peace-building process in postwar Europe, Alice Ackerman describes three fundamental processes which have achieved a transformed and peaceful relationship between France and Germany:

1.   The humanizing of relationships among leaders and their respective constituents and societies;

2.   The creation of a domestic environment conducive to peace through promotion of people-to-people contact, mainly with official sponsorship but with some private sponsorship also;

3.   The creation of cooperative linkages that provide incentives, institutional support, and continuity to the political and psychological processes.
²

German leaders saw reconciliation between France and Germany as the only way to guarantee peace and security for their two countries and for the rest of Europe. As a result, numerous informal contacts were made by French and German politicians and private citizens in the immediate postwar years. Through the building of these relationships, destructive stereotypes were broken down and “the other” was humanized.

In order to establish an environment conducive to peace, German political leaders made many public statements aimed at dismantling any psychological and cultural barriers that acted as stumbling blocks. The two countries entered into a joint process of reviewing and rewriting the way in which their respective histories were written. The practice of “twin-towning” was established, in which relationships and regular
exchanges between respective towns were set up. Over the years, student exchanges and cooperative relationships between universities were promoted, as were technological exchanges and vocational training programmes. A focus on encouraging participation by the youth of the respective countries was a specific strategy of the reconciliation process.

Marked by the Franco-German Treaty of 1963, institutionalization of the reconciliation process began in earnest. The Treaty called for regular consultation between government counterparts, including the obligation for consultations prior to all decisions on questions of vital foreign policy interests and on other issues of common interests. This has led not only to a strong relationship between the two countries but, as we have seen in more recent years, also to the formation of the European Union. The effect is that the extensive linkages between the countries would now make it too costly for conflict to be carried out by violent means. Conflict between these two countries, and within the European Union, must now be resolved through the political processes of bargaining and compromise.

In a complementary finding which looks at peace and conflict between identity groups within a country, Varshney, in his book titled
Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life
studied the factors which contribute to the prevention of communal violence between Hindu and Muslim communities in India.
³
He found that
associational ties
— developed through ethnically integrated organizations, including business associations, trade unions, professional groups, political parties, and sports clubs — stand out as the most effective ways of preventing communal violence. While informal interactions between ethnic/identity groups are helpful in promoting harmony, he found that these informal interactions are not sufficient to prevent violence. Instead, Varshney argues, formal associations of mixed membership are required to prevent violence. According to Varshney, a relatively greater focus needs to be placed on building an integrated civil society if we are to be effective in reducing violence between ethnic/identity groups.

Associational ties,
where relationships are established in areas of shared interest, are a way to institutionalize relationships between diverse and opposing groups. Rather than choosing to dwell on the issues that divide their communities, individuals have chosen to enter into relationship with “the other” on issues where they have shared interests. The power of
associational ties
is that these relationships, rather than being merely informal, are institutionalized through formal associations. It appears, as
in the Franco-German example, that two dynamics are at work in the institutionalization of these respective relationships: mechanisms have been established through which differences can be negotiated; and the relative impact on the overall community of destructive violence has become more costly.

Turning to our third example, one of the strongest themes that comes out of the South African experience is the role played by relationships that were built between persons in opposing political camps. It is quite astounding to learn how former enemies, who feared and hated each other, took the risk to develop relationships with each other. In some situations, individuals took significant personal risks to reach out to the other side to begin to forge relationships that eventually allowed negotiations to be conducted in a more conducive atmosphere. Though he was clearly not the only individual who took these risks, Mandela’s leadership and example in pursuing relationships and negotiation with apartheid leaders is a testament to what is possible even in the most repressive and violent situations. Allister Sparks’ book,
Tomorrow is Another Country,
⁴
describes how many of these unlikely relationships began and then were built upon. They became the foundation of trust from which the negotiations for a new South Africa evolved. In quite a number of instances, these relationships were instrumental in salvaging negotiations and clarifying misunderstandings between and within groups as the negotiation process ran into difficulties. Regarding early secret meetings between the African National Congress (ANC) and Afrikaner leaders Sparks writes:

On the Afrikaner side they dissolved the demonized image of the ANC that had been built up by years of propaganda, while on the ANC side they sensitized black liberators to white anxieties, particularly Afrikaner fears about their survival prospects under black rule.
⁵

Only because they had built a basis of relationship were the respective parties able to enter into genuine dialogue — a process by which one risks being changed by genuinely listening to “the other”.

In each of these three examples, we can see the key role that encounter and engagement played in transforming a situation of protracted and deep conflict into one where the respective parties could begin to forge relationships of mutual trust, cooperation, and interdependence. An approach of encounter and engagement contrasts significantly with the isolationism which has tended to dominate the international community’s
policies towards Myanmar. Furthermore, particularly in the Franco-German and South African examples, we also see that a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach is critical to facilitating and creating positive change in situations of protracted conflict.

What implications can we draw from these examples regarding the type of approach to be considered in situations of protracted and deep conflict? I can think of at least three implications, though I am sure there are more that will need to be considered.

First, the approach needs to be “relationship-oriented” and “change-oriented”, rather than “solution and agreement” driven. Too often the focus has been on protecting the interests of each party through the finding of solutions and making agreements. In the case of Myanmar, an approach involving encounter and engagement will require the focus to be as much on building relationships and developing a longer-term perspective towards “change-orientation” as is usually placed on the issues in contention.

Second, there needs to be as much focus on the process of initiatives as on the content or outcomes. In other words, the questions of
who
is involved and
how
decisions are made and communicated are of equal importance with
what
is being decided. In many situations, there is little understanding and appreciation for how important the process is. Often, in order to achieve the desired outcome and in an attempt to avoid conflict, certain individuals and groups are excluded from the decision-making process or, if physically included, are not afforded the opportunity to truly express diverse views. In Myanmar, where critical thinking and analysis skills have not been encouraged, the need to develop and support this process-oriented capacity is particularly acute.

Third, protracted and deep conflicts require multi-faceted and complementary processes of change that involve broad groups of people who are willing to adopt innovative and constructive initiatives. There are multiple and complex dynamics at work in these types of situations. A singular focus and independent initiatives are less likely to be effective in creating and sustaining constructive change than multi-faceted and complementary approaches. We can ill afford to continue on the separate
journeys of “first track” and “second track” thinking. Instead, we need to consider how various initiatives impact on each other and how initiatives in one sphere have the potential to complement initiatives in other spheres.

In his book,
Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies,
international peace-building expert John Paul Lederach describes a model which empowers resources within a society and maximizes contributions from the international community.
⁶
We would do well to consider Lederach’s model and move beyond the unproductive debate of “isolation or engagement” and “top-level diplomacy or grass-roots mobilization”. Framing the questions in this type of “either/or” dualistic thinking, limits the options. Instead, a more holistic approach which appreciates the need for creative and multi-faceted complementary approaches is needed. Further, in terms of the time-frame for achieving progress, the focus needs to move away from short-term objectives to the longer-term time horizons that are needed for these types of change processes.

Over the past dozen years, during which humanitarian assistance to Myanmar has increased, there has been a gradual enhancement in the understanding by the Myanmar authorities of the role of international and domestic humanitarian assistance agencies. There has also been a gradual increase in the geographic and sectoral space within which these organizations operate. The operating environment, though still somewhat constrained, is a more constructive environment than in years past.

As has been documented recently by Save the Children–UK, there are many local, small, informal community organizations in Myanmar.
⁷
Apart from these small community organizations, there are a number of regional and national religious and community organizations that engage in humanitarian activities and which are part of a larger network of organizations dedicated to responding to the needs of the vulnerable. Most of these organizations are either not officially registered or they operate under the auspices of a religious organization umbrella.

The past five years have witnessed the establishment of a few officially-registered domestic humanitarian assistance agencies. Two of the better-known of these are the Metta Development Foundation, which focuses on providing assistance in post-conflict regions of Kachin, Shan, and Kayah States, and the Shalom Foundation, which focuses on providing training in peace-building for ethnic minority communities.
⁸
It is an encouraging sign that these organizations have been able to initiate and establish
activities across regions and across identity groups, and have been able to consult and facilitate dialogue across existing divides. Both of these organizations have worked on developing transparency in their relationships with central government authorities and regional commanders, as well as on cultivating positive relationships with the leaders of armed political groups which have entered into ceasefire arrangements. Though both the Metta and Shalom Foundations are in their infancy, and as yet have limited capacities, these and other organizations have demonstrated the possibility that domestic organizations can address humanitarian needs and work in ways that cross existing divides and attempt to build understanding between various groups.