The Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) Explained
A nationwide ceasefire agreement is a formal arrangement between two parties in which violence either is stopped or regulated to the extent that normal relations are restored among civilians. It typically follows an acknowledgement of a rupture in relations and usually requires some recognition by one party that it bears some responsibility for the rupture.
Defined most simply, a ceasefire is a cessation of hostilities between the parties to a conflict. A nationwide ceasefire agreement does not just end hostilities in one region or over one demand, but covers all regions and all demands, including reevaluating the basis of the conflict that led to hostilities in the first place . In some cases, a nationwide ceasefire agreement may lead to the establishment of a more broadly-acceptable relationship among the parties to the conflict as evidenced by changes (however subtle) in the original cause of the conflict, meaning that the long-term goal of peace is achieved.
A nationwide ceasefire agreement is generally characterized by some or all of the following elements: While ceasefire agreements have been used extensively in international and intercontinental conflicts, they are also important domestically where "states" can be thought of as entities within a nation. A nationwide ceasefire agreement can help with issues of sustainability since it involves a strong commitment from the leadership of both parties to the conflict. It can also increase public support by making it clear that leaders’ strong commitments have eliminated the options of unending war or unending autocracy of one party over another.
History and Background
Nationwide ceasefire agreements are not new in the context of Myanmar’s path to peace. In January 2012 and May 2013, the government and the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) signed ceasefire agreements that appeared to offer a way forward toward peace. The results of those agreements were timid at best, and certainly nothing compared to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA).
In September 2013, President Thein Sein invited ethnic armed groups to come together and sign the NCA. The goal was to build a foundation for a broader political dialogue to achieve a lasting peace. The breakthrough came on October 15, 2015, when eight ethnic armed groups signed the NCA with the Thein Sein government in Khun Myat.
Since then, the NCA has been signed by 14 ethnic armed groups and the current government. The NCA stipulates conditions under which ethnic armed groups will cooperate with the government to achieve some common ground before brokering "federal democratic" structural changes to Myanmar’s Constitution. The design of the new structure will be discussed at the Union Peace Conference to be held in Naypyitaw before the end of this year. This year will also see plans for the establishment of a separate National Reconciliation and Peace Center. A "Union Peace Truth Commission" is also in the works.
Major Players and Contributors
A nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA) typically involves multiple stakeholders, including the government, a national ceasefire coordinating team representing armed ethnic groups, army representatives, civil society representatives, technical consultants, and international mediators and facilitators. The NCA is a single peace process in which the Myanmar Government, the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), Karen National Union (KNU) and the Democratic Karen Bracht (DKBA) have been key stakeholders. They have all participated in a nationwide ceasefire which was signed in October 2015. Other major stakeholders in the NCA process include the ethnic armed organisations and their respective representatives. Further civil society representatives are included in the NCA process with the aim of monitoring its progress and ensuring that the process is transparent. Main international stakeholders include the China Institute of International Affairs, Japan, ASEAN, and the Unites Nations, who participate as relevant to their objectives. The China Institute of International Affairs has important roles as both a party of goodwill and a facilitator for the negotiation of ceasefire agreements in Myanmar and between different ethnic armed organisations.
Benefits and Challenges of the NCA
As the number of nationwide ceasefire agreements have increased, so too has the understanding that there are tremendous benefits when these are implemented. For many, immediate, tangible, and very specific benefits are visible very quickly and can often be seen in the form of increased trade, rebuilding confidence in the ability of the government to assure citizens that they will be able to walk down the street without fear of physical harm or emotional trauma from a violent neighbor or a governmental force. Further down the road, there is much more difficult work to do; the cessation of violence is just the first step in what is at times a dauntingly long process. With the cessation of violence comes the need for both security and safety structures to be put into place. These can be both private and governmental. Where private groups secure safety with vigilant groups, these actors must be carefully policed. At times, the suspected intentions of one or the other group can lead to escalated violence. This has been the case on several occasions where land and resources have touched a nerve and caused violence in an otherwise peaceful region that previously had troubles. When governmental security forces come across the ceasefire, nor its signers, favorably, these forces can at times overextend their role and cause the very violence they had previously pledged to stop. Care of both actors that adhere to the signatures of a ceasefire can go a long way in continuing the good faith of both sides. At another layer, there is the matter of integration into the political system. Often, with an agreement in place, the voices of those who previously would not have been part of the national system can come in strongly to play a role in shaping the long-term direction of the nation. In some cases, this has been extremely beneficial, as seen in the case of South Sudan’s inclusion of multiple ethnicities, the vast majority of whom had been previously excluded from the government sphere. The benefits were seen quickly as more inclusive trade and commerce slowed. However, such inclusion at the same time leads to struggles when there is tension among the parties. When the power structures are not clear and transparent, and there is not enough room for all to have a voice, the immediate and the long-term successes falter. At times, though, the current system becomes entrenched and efforts to change the status quo are resisted by those who are benefiting from it. At times this can even lead to violence. As tensions rise and create fissures in negotiations, the efforts to secure a ceasefire that has been initiated can slow in pace and sometimes grind to a halt.
Notable Examples of Ceasefire Agreements
Drawing on existing national and international conflict dynamics, the following two ceasefire agreements may provide a general overview of what constitutes successful ceasefire agreements.
Southern Philippines, 2014
On March 27, 2014, the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed a Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), ending 45 years of intermittent conflict in southern Mindanao, Philippines. The CAB was endorsed by the government of the Philippines Congress on March 19, 2018 and the Bangsmoro Organic Law on July 26, 2018, which led to its implementation and the conference on the agreement. It is important to note the involvement of international and regional agents to mediate the formulation of the CAB. International actors such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the European Union, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the UN also played important roles in supporting the peace process in terms of financial, technical and assistive instruments to the MILF and Philippine government. The CAB therefore created a new autonomous political entity, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARM), with more authority and powers of governance compared to the existing Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The Philippine local government code puts it sufficiently succinctly that the basic principles of the CAB aim to: The CAB is considered quite a successful and comprehensive ceasefire agreement. Nevertheless, one key lesson learned from the BANGSAMORO Accord is that the lesson learned from earlier failures must be applied to future peace process negotiations. In particular, resettlement and rehabilitation of conflict-affected areas and communities is among the most critical and important lessons learned from the path of the Mindanao conflict. In this regard , the CAB not only states that resettlement is required; it also identifies the resources and actors that must collaborate for successful counselling and resettlement of affected communities.
Ethiopia-Eritrea 2000
The 2000 Algiers Peace Accord was signed on December 12, 2000, closing a bloody border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea that pitted the two nations against each other. The two countries fought a bitter border war that killed approximately 70,000 in some 2000 combat engagements. An estimated 100,000 women were also taken as prizes for battle by soldiers from both sides. However, the Algiers Agreement resolved the border war through sufficient provisions to protect the human rights of the displaced and also offered provisions for the resettlement of affected women. The lessons learned from the peace accord offer useful insights into the kinds of institutional set up and planning necessary for an implementation process. For instance, provisions for a joint Eritrean-Ethiopian demarcation of the boundary and mechanism for monitoring the resolution, as well as the establishment of a neutral independent boundary commission. The regime for the demarcation of the border, together with the demilitarization of the border area, are governed by Eritrea – Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC). Finally, free movement of people and access by humanitarian organizations for vulnerable groups and women was also a key clause in the Algiers Accord. A lesson learned from the Algiers Accord is therefore that it is not enough for user groups to simply agree to a ceasefire agreement, such agreement must also contain provisions for sufficient monitoring, evaluation and analysis of implementation. While there are indeed other successful ceasefire agreements, the two discussed above offer useful insights into the important courts to deliver and establish successful nationwide ceasefire agreements.
Impact on the Ground
The introduction of a nationwide ceasefire agreement has a significant impact on local communities throughout the country. One of the most immediate social effects is often a greater degree of security for civilians. With hostilities formally ended, communities can devote previously necessary resources toward responsive and constructive purposes. In many cases, the absence of fighting also encourages the voluntary return of individuals displaced either by combat or ongoing violence, which can begin to heal the psychological wounds of families torn apart by armed conflict.
Increased security also has an economic impact, as communities can move from survival to revitalization. Efforts to promote business development, attract new investment, and restore damaged infrastructure all require stability and a longer-term view that is both risky and politically difficult in the middle of an armed conflict. A nationwide ceasefire even makes it easier to tax businesses, drawing public funds out of internal conflict and toward reconstruction.
A less obvious but equally important effect is a positive influence on local politics. In the absence of armed insurgencies, local political leaders tend to face greater scrutiny. Elected officials often have to make tough decisions that might not garner the support of all segments of the electorate. In this context, a major factor in community satisfaction with public officials is the absence of armed violence. In addition, the presence of a recognized national government signals a degree of control over security forces that often leads to local political victories for the ruling party.
As local politics shift, so too does the competition and partisan struggle that ungrounded violence so sharply exacerbates. A nationwide ceasefire helps diminish the politicized social and economic violence that has plagued communities throughout the country. The gradual growth of social, economic, and political capital combine to create lasting improvements long after violence ceases.
Looking Forward: Future Implications of the NCA
The future of nationwide ceasefire agreements continues to be a topic of significant interest and debate. As governments and conflict resolution organizations recognize the limitations and complications associated with traditional diplomatic efforts, ceasefire agreements stand as an alternative that can lead to shorter-term resolutions, while fostering the opening of communication channels. Looking ahead, a number of factors will likely influence the evolution and implementation of these agreements.
With the international community continuing to evolve, the dynamic geopolitical environment poses both challenges and opportunities. Future developments will depend on the shifting alliances and regional influences that impact a country’s ability to negotiate and uphold a ceasefire agreement. The global resurgence of nationalism may present a new wave of resistance to the compromises that are often essential to reach the initial ceasefire and ultimately the longer-term settlement and sustainable peace. In another sense, however, the rise of certain non-state actors and their ability to claim territory and political power may drive governments towards ceasefire negotiations, seeing this as a more amenable alternative to full-scale conflict.
The future success of a ceasefire agreement also relies on the implementation of an effective monitoring and observation mechanism. As the pace of technological adoption accelerates , the tools and techniques available to monitor ceasefire commitments will continue to expand. Drones, satellite imagery, and other modern forms of data collection will allow for near-real-time information and analysis, offering a new realm of transparency to dialogue participants and outside observers, alike.
Finally, the strategy and tactics used to secure agreement on ceasefire terms is undergoing a gradual shift. Where a sense of urgency around calling for a ceasefire typically drove the agenda, there is now an expanded understanding of the integral role a ceasefire can play in overall conflict resolution. Gaining touchstones around humanitarian access, repatriation, data collection, and ceasefire parameters may be accelerating and aiding in the negotiation of long-term solutions.
In examining the future of nationwide ceasefire agreements, it is important to recognize that the concept itself has entered a new phase of global understanding and application. No longer an ad hoc or parochial initiative, the nationwide ceasefire concept is increasingly seen as a unified effort to manage conflict through dialogue. As different regions continue to adopt and adapt this concept, the creation of new terms, lessons, and applications will provide further knowledge to fuel refinement.