Most of the respondents sound negative. Typical ones:

• The Shan State National Army (SSNA) was forced to surrender (in 2005). And the SSA North broke up into two groups (one accepting the Burma Army-controlled People’s Militia Force and the other returning to the armed struggle). The SSA South will be no different.
• I don’t agree with separate ceasefire arrangements. We should do it together.
• The previous ceasefire (1989-2009) did not bring much benefit to the people. The ceasefire groups were not able to do much to prevent human rights abuses. If the SSA South cannot protect the people, the new ceasefire will be nothing.

On the other hand, there are those who view the latest development positively:

• I hope they sign the agreement soon, so we can return home. Until now, the people are being made to pay for every clash that breaks out and every casualty the Burma Army suffers.
• To sign a ceasefire agreement is a collective decision. It was not decided by an individual. We all know there is a risk, but it’s like a football match. How do we know we’re going to win or lose unless we have our players in the field?

One Shan lady has thrown her support behind the move with a famous quote: “Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate.”

The SSA South delegation led by Lt-Gen Yawdserk met U Aung Min, President Thein Sein’s special representative, on Saturday, 19 November, at an undisclosed venue on the Thai-Burmese border. After one and a half discussion, he agreed to send a delegation to Taunggyi, the Shan State capital, to sign a formal pact.

“We are negotiating,” the 52 year old Shan leader said, “because we have always held that political problems must be resolved politically. We were forced to take up arms only because previous governments had always pursued a military solution”.