Keeping the NCA alive : A shared commitment to peace
78
By Phyo Lin Aung (NP News) - Oct 18
As Myanmar reaches the 10th anniversary of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), a treaty once hailed as a milestone toward peace and federal democracy, the agreement now stands at its most contentious moment. Six of the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) that signed the NCA including the Karen National Union (KNU) issued a joint statement on October 13, declaring the agreement to be nothing more than “a scrap of paper.”
This statement goes beyond simply rejecting the NCA. The six EAOs are now actively urging others to turn away from the treaty. One of the main points of their criticism is that the NCA is a total failure in terms of outcomes while it has been a means for the Tatmadaw to extend its control over the country. They state that the Tatmadaw was always the most influential actor in the meetings, the main obstacle to turning NCA clauses into practice, and the one who breached the accords, thereby depriving the ceasefire of its core values and aims right from the start.
Furthermore, the groups argue that the 2021 declaration of a state of emergency was the final blow, “blatantly destroyed the essence, principles, and objectives of the NCA.” For them, the agreement no longer holds any political or moral legitimacy, and they warn that clinging to it only benefits the Tatmadaw.
During a joint call, the EAOs together requested not only their supporters but also the public to refuse the NCA as a road to peace. They warned people against providing the government with a mandate under the guise of the NCA and urged them to refrain from elections organized by the 2008 Constitution.
Additionally, these six groups tried to convince the international community that the NCA process should not be recognized. They made a direct appeal to the United Nations, ASEAN, foreign diplomats, and the organizations that were invited as witnesses to the agreement to stay away from the celebrations of the 10th anniversary.
By calling for a boycott and by framing the NCA as obsolete, these EAOs are not only distancing themselves from the peace process but are actively campaigning to convince others both local and international that the NCA has no future. Their stance shows not just disregard for the NCA, but also an effort to shift the political landscape away from the NCA framework altogether.
The NCA: A hard-won agreement
To dismiss the NCA as a mere “scrap of paper,” however, overlooks the immense effort that went into crafting it. The NCA was not a one-sided initiative. The NCA is the product of years of difficult negotiations, largely conceived and developed through consultative processes between the government, Tatmadaw and a variety of ethnic armed organizations.
From the day the peace talks were initiated by the first democratic government until the NCA was signed, a total of more than 5,000 meetings and negotiations were held over a period of 1,450 days. Besides formal engagements, the talks sometimes involved casual or indirect communications even with intermediaries. Significant concessions were made by all parties to ensure that the EAOs were brought to the table with dignity and equality.
The result was a historic treaty that carried the endorsement of not only the government and the Tatmadaw but also international witnesses such as the United Nations and the European Union. The NCA represented the most comprehensive framework yet for reducing conflict and building trust. By its very nature, it cannot simply be declared void by one side without undermining the credibility of all who participated.
Fractures within the signatories
With these rejections to the NCA, political realities quickly complicated the picture. The six EAOs now rejecting the NCA’s relevance did not immediately withdraw in 2021. Instead, several aligned themselves with the NUG by 2022, forging ties with PDFs fighting the Tatmadaw.
In the case of the KNU, controversies have deepened. The group has been accused of allowing online scam networks to proliferate in areas under its control, and of openly arming or supporting groups declared “terrorist organizations” by the government. Critics argue that these moves reflect not only opposition to the Tatmadaw but also self-interested political maneuvering. By aligning with the NUG and accepting financial resources including foreign support, the KNU appears to be pursuing ambitions for a Kawthoolei state, while simultaneously exploiting the national crisis for strategic gain.
The KNU has been labeled a terrorist organization for the second time by the government. Observers are pointing out that the group appears to be deliberately dragging other EAOs into the same basket. Such a joint declaration reflects not only the exploitation of instability for their own interests, but also an indication of a broader political plan to disrupt the peace process.
Dialogue or deadlock?
The central question as the NCA turns ten is not whether the treaty has failed—it is whether it can still serve as a platform for dialogue. Some analysts believe the real challenge now lies in reconciling the seven EAOs that signed the NCA and those that never signed it. Without bringing these groups into the political process, prospects for peace will remain dim.
Although the country faces instability, the Tatmadaw tried to re-establish the peace dialogue several times, by extending invitations to EAOs on at least three occasions. 27 ceasefires have been reached out throughout the years, which shows that there are still openings to discuss. However, the recent announcement by the EAOs still reflects their resistance to come to the negotiating table under the present situation. Armed groups contend that without offering real concessions and guarantees, they will persist in declining talks and at the same time treat the NCA as an irrelevant issue to the post-2021 political landscape.
Nonetheless, there are still certain risks in completely getting rid of the NCA. The pact was made very painstakingly and carefully with the support of the international community and remains one of the few frameworks that can set the terms of political negotiations at equal levels. So, rejecting it could lead to an increase in violence and make it even more difficult to draw up new agreements.
Conclusion
The 10th anniversary of the NCA was celebrated with enthusiasm by both ethnic armed groups and the international community. Ten years on, the NCA stands as both a reminder of missed opportunities and a possible foundation for renewed dialogue. Its future—whether it will remain a living framework or become a relic of history—rests on the willingness of the government, the Tatmadaw, and the EAOs to uphold it as more than just words on paper, but as a genuine commitment to ending decades of conflict.