According to Eleven Media Group's report of 15 September, since May the government has made known that it was planning to hold a nationwide ceasefire signing ceremony in Naypyitaw with all ethnic armed groups (ENGs), armed clashes continue and refugee population continue to grow unabated.

The government, during May conducted ten peace talks and signed one peace agreement, while eighteen armed clashes occurred at the same time. Two thousand four hundred refugees were added to the refugee population, due to the armed confrontations. In June, three peace talks were held, but no agreement was signed. Seventeen armed clashes occurred and two hundred refugees were added to the refugee population. In July, eight peace talks were held and three agreements were signed, while twelve armed clashes occurred. In August, ten peace talks were held and two agreements were signed, while ten armed clashes occurred. In September, not less than ten armed clashes happened and 2000 were added to the refugee population.

The government has conducted peace talks with seventeen EAGs and have achieved union-level peace agreement with eleven groups and state-level with three groups. But it is still in the process of peace talks with Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), Arakan Army (AA) and Palaung State Liberation Front/ Ta’ang National Liberation Army (PSLF/TNLA) and still far away to reach peace agreement.

Thus the most fighting happened with Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and TNLA, leading to the refugee population growth. But armed confrontations with the Restoration Council of Shan State/ Shan State Army (RCSS/SSA), Shan State Progress Party/ Shan State Army (SSPP/SSA), New Mon State Party (NMSP) and Karen National Union (KNU) continue to happen, which have signed union-level and state-level ceasefire agreement with the government.

To date, 632,000 refugees have been counted and due to the continued armed clashes the refugee population continues to grow.

The Burma Army (BA) and government reason for armed clashes occurrence even after ceasefire agreement were signed is due to breaching of the six restrictions made by BA, which was made known only after the signing of ceasefire and not before it and becomes an obstacle to the peace process, according to the EAGs.

The ongoing armed clashes occurrences were due to BA's six points, declared opinion. They were not to kill, not to force recruit members, not to levy taxes, not to expand armed garrison, not to participate in armed confrontation with the government troops on the side of ethnic armed groups’ military alliance, not to interfere with the government administration, and not to attack government controlled militia groups.

But the irony is that the BA, which would like to portray itself a protector of the people is, in fact, a notorious human rights violator for decades, well documented by all leading right groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and so on. One only needs to go back on several annual reports of the said right groups and find out its gross human rights violations.

Only recently, SHAN files a report, in Tai language section, on 16 September, that passengers’ buses were placed in front and in between a BA military convoy to protect itself from rebel’s ambush, while conducting the reinforcement and movement between Namkham and Muse, in northern Shan State. The said military convoy was said to have witness a three bomb explosions, while on its way from Muse to Namkham, near Asia World tool gate, although no culprit could be identified.

An educated young woman, Nang Kham Aye said:” No army should use the people for its protection. If explosive mines were laid, it is the people who will die first. Why is the saying of the military protecting the people becomes the people protecting the military?”

It is not a surprise that this kind of talking, while shooting, double track policy, or "good-cop bad-cop scenario" is repeating with the KIA and as well, with the SSA South and SSA North.

As it is there are four sources of power in Burma, namely: the President headed government, Burma Army, Parliament and Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). You wouldn't know with whom to really cut the deal. But one thing is sure, the hidden policy dictated and accepted by all the military-turned-politicians and the military top brass is none other than Burman ethnocentrism or Burman dominated unitary system of government.

And thus, the armed clashes will occur, so long as the Burma Army is bent on military occupation of the ethnic homelands. The Burma Army is intruder and occupier and as such, must take the lead initiative of, at least, partial withdrawal from ethnic homelands; for example: like withdrawing their troops to respective mother bases, if not completely back to Burmese heartland, to show sincerity and good will that it really means business.

Finally, one could only endorse the editorial of Hsen Pai (Variety), a fortnightly journal, published in its first issue on 12 August.

Part of the commentary, reported in SHAN, on 16 September writes:

The editorial on the first issue was about the unacceptability of the President’s 8 point guidelines, which require the armed resistance movements to adopt the military-drawn constitution, form parties, enter elections and join the existing military-dominated legislature. “According to experts,” it writes, “4 things must come before those mentioned: Adoption of a military Code of Conduct, Setting up of ceasefire monitors, Waiver on the Unlawful Association Act and Holding of political dialogue.”

It is understandable that the government wants to keep up to its schedule, allotted time frame and that it wants to look good before taking the Chair of ASEAN, conduct ASEAN game in the coming year and benefit from such ad hoc signing ceremony in terms of heightened foreign investment and international aids. But what is the logic of signing a nationwide ceasefire for the sake of signing it, if it is not going to really materialize or make good sense on the ground, in practical terms.

The contributor is the General Secretary of Shan Democratic Union (SDU) - Editor