CNI News

March 6, 2026

The Myanmar Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on March 6, 2026, urging a de-escalation of the ongoing war in Iran and calling for a peaceful resolution through negotiations.

Myanmar expressed deep concern over the recent attacks currently unfolding in the Middle East region.

"Myanmar believes that constructive dialogue and diplomatic efforts, based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, are the only ways to resolve the conflict," the Ministry stated.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged the nations involved in the Middle East conflict and hostilities to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, reduce confrontations, and seek a peaceful solution through negotiation.

The war in the Middle East has been ongoing since the United States and Israel launched attacks on Iran on March 1, 2026.

The strikes by the U.S. and Israel resulted in the deaths of high-ranking military officials, including Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

In response, Iran has been retaliating against U.S. military bases located across the Middle East and has blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, preventing oil tankers from passing through. This situation has led to a burgeoning global energy crisis.

CNI Interview 

March 6, 2026

Myanmar is currently home to numerous armed organizations, and intense fighting is breaking out across the country. While there are calls for peace and attempts at dialogue, success remains elusive. Despite practicing a non-aligned policy between neighbors China and India to promote national development, the country continues to face a general political crisis.

CNI News Agency contacted U Khun Sai, a participant in the peace process, to discuss these conditions.

Q: During the British colonial era, Myanmar had a "98 Departments" administration—though most know it as the "91 Departments" administration. The British controlled seven key departments, while the remaining 91, which were considered less critical, were left to Burmese control. Would a similar system work in Myanmar today? For instance, having the center hold key departments while appointing and empowering local leaders in their respective states?

A: I haven't studied that specific historical system extensively, so I can't give a definitive answer. What I can speak to is the Panglong Agreement. According to the agreement and its subsequent protocols, the central government handles matters concerning everyone, while states handle matters concerning their own territories.

When people hear "the center handles collective matters," it can be interpreted as the Burman government ruling while non-Burman ethnicities only manage their own states. Many understand it that way. However, the leaders who drafted the Panglong Agreement—including Burman leaders—didn't view it like that. The central government wasn't meant to be "Burman-only." It was intended to include ethnic and minority leaders working together.

If you look at the Panglong Agreement, points 1 through 4 relate to the central government, and you can see ethnic leaders were involved there. Since ethnic leaders themselves are part of the center, there is no need for the central government to worry about states governing themselves.

Nowadays, when "Panglong" is mentioned, people often think of secession or independence. But Panglong wasn't built for that. It allows for self-administration within a state. If everyone manages collective matters together at the center, the issue of secession won't even arise. We need to distinguish this clearly. If we don't, and the mindset remains "Burmans hold the center while ethnicities hold the states," then there is a real reason to worry.

In U Nu’s era, state leaders—then called "Chairmen" rather than Chief Ministers—participated in the Union government. This supported the essence of Panglong: that matters concerning everyone are decided by everyone. We need to act in that spirit. Regarding the 91 or 98 departments, I have no specific comment.

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and representatives of armed groups.

Q: How do you think the issue of Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) should be resolved?

A: Regarding the EAO issue, looking at current proposals like the "Watan Act," the Burman government might find them unacceptable, viewing them as a "Confederation." However, if we accept and apply the principle that collective matters are managed together while state-specific matters are managed by the states, there is nothing to fear.

Q: Would it be feasible to grant EAOs administrative authority in their respective states?

A: Practically speaking, this could be a necessary temporary measure. However, we must accept that as we build a democracy, we must—sooner rather than later—give the public the right to participate in decision-making. A government that lacks public support, whether it's a state or central government, cannot be sustainable in the long run.

Q: Currently, the Military (Tatmadaw) is using the Border Guard Force (BGF) and People's Militia models, asking armed groups to join as such. EAOs generally dislike this. What if a model like the U.S. National Guard were adopted instead?

A: This is something that takes time. During the NCA (Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement) negotiations, the government stood for a "Single Army" principle, while EAOs stood for "State Guard Forces" in their respective regions.

These two positions represent a conflict: a "Single Army" is a globally accepted norm for a nation, while "State Guard Forces" arise from a lack of mutual trust and security. At that time, it was agreed to negotiate how to transition from separate state forces to a single Union Army step-by-step.

Work had already begun during the Third Union Accord. Had the coup (or "power-keeping") not occurred, we would have made significant strides by now. Now, because of the coup, the "Single Army" concept is even harder to accept. It will take more time and require more stringent regulations.

However, these are not insurmountable issues. Look at Switzerland. They operated with state-level forces for hundreds of years. They managed collective matters together and handled local security with their own state troops. Eventually, they became a Union Army. We don't need to wait hundreds of years like Switzerland; it could happen in a decade. But we need serious dialogue. Everyone must realize that we cannot ensure security alone as a single state or a single ethnic group. If we accept that we must work together, it is entirely possible.

An Anniversary Celebration of the NCA (Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement).

Q: If the right to form these specific State Guard Forces were granted, how do you think the landscape of Myanmar would change?

A: Accepting this wouldn't mean accepting it as a permanent fixture. It must be viewed as an interim stage. We would need to establish clear phases for how these State Guard Forces would eventually transition into a single, unified national army.

Q: Looking at the current situation, many states have multiple EAOs. In Shan State, for example, there are many groups. How should they be organized? In the U.S., they have a Joint Chiefs of Staff model. If Myanmar moves toward a State Guard Force model, how should the initial structure look?

A: I cannot provide technical details on that. In such matters, we should collectively study how Switzerland operated before they formed a unified federal army and establish a policy that fits our own country.

What I recall is that during World War II, they still functioned with state guards. However, they had a Joint Staff for the entire country. During the war, their Joint Staff made the decisions on how to defend the nation, and the respective state guards followed those decisions.

Q: In South Africa, during Nelson Mandela's time, more than seven armed groups were integrated to form the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). His approach involved disarmament, disbanding old units, and then reintegrating them. Since they had been enemies for years and trust was hard to rebuild, they formed commissions where parties could confess their grievances and engage in dialogue. Only then were they retrained under military discipline and standards. Is such a model possible here? How should Myanmar handle this?

A: First, we must talk. But second, we currently lack figures or leaders like Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu. Because of this, immediate disarmament followed by reintegration is not easy in our country. It must be a step-by-step process.

However, because it is a gradual process, some might get impatient and say, "Just strip it all away—I’ll disarm first, then you disarm." That might happen, but we shouldn't rush. When we rush, we might overlook or bypass crucial details. If we ignore those details, larger difficulties will emerge later, and they will be harder to overcome. Regardless of the method, we need to talk. Through dialogue, we can find the best path.

We should consider how to combine the Swiss method I mentioned with the South African method you described. We can also study the Nepalese model and synthesize them. The most important thing is to agree: "We will absolutely not fight each other anymore."

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Modi.

Q: Essentially, there must be a political agreement in place before these discussions can happen, right?

A: There must be. There is one thing we can all agree on right now: we all agree that we must become a Federal Democratic Union. However, the specific "model" of how that will look is what we must negotiate.

Q: A new government will emerge soon this month. What kind of policy should this new government adopt regarding the relationship with China and India?

A: We must follow a Non-Aligned Policy. Even though most people currently reject many sections of the 2008 Constitution, the principles that we are a non-aligned nation and that no foreign troops shall be stationed on our soil are points everyone can agree on. These should remain.

Most importantly, we need to move beyond just paying lip service to the 1955 Bandung Conference agreement and actually practice it. If we can execute that well, Myanmar could truly become the "Switzerland of the East."

Since independence, our Burmese leaders—and by that, I mean all national leaders—have dreamed of and admired this idea. It didn't happen then, but it is possible in our generation.

Q: If instead of a non-aligned policy, the new government leans heavily toward either China or India, what would that scenario look like?

A: If that happens, two things are possible. First, our country might remain a nation in name only. On the surface, we'd still be Myanmar, but in reality, we’d belong to someone else. One could argue there is a silver lining: we haven't known peace in the nearly 80 years we've governed ourselves, so one might hope that falling under another's influence would bring the same peace those countries enjoy. That is one perspective.

The other possibility is that if we align with either India or China, and those two remain at odds, we will inevitably suffer the fallout of their friction. Conversely, if our country can maintain friendship with both, we have nothing to worry about.

A Youth Peace Forum in progress.

Q: What is your analysis of current "Rare Earth Politics"?

A: Rare earth elements might be scarce in other countries, but you could say they aren't scarce here. Regardless, even if we sell them to whoever wants them, we shouldn't do it just to get some quick cash. We need to get the highest price for our resources.

Furthermore, the revenue generated shouldn't go into individual pockets; it must be used for the country. Geographically, our country is arguably the richest in Southeast Asia, but socially, we are incredibly impoverished. We are like a "rich man's son lost on a sandbank"—clutching a bag of money but with nothing to spend it on, reduced to a life of begging. This era of history needs to end.

I remember hearing our elders say that if every household were given just one teak tree from our forests, there is no way our people would be poor. I liked that idea. But in practice, instead of one tree per household, a single individual ends up owning and selling millions of trees. We must act to prevent this. Rare earth minerals are no different.

Q: Currently, most rare earth-producing areas are controlled by the KIA. How significant is the KIA’s role in this landscape?

A: A state with essential natural resources always has bargaining power. It is very significant. But on the other hand, consider one's survival. Suppose I am a rich man's son with billions of dollars, but I am surrounded by enemies. How can I use that money?

To use it, I need to be on good terms with everyone—or at least the majority. If you work toward that harmony, the benefits aren't just for you; they must include others. If there is a "yours and mine" balance, it’s good for everyone in the long run. We’ve all heard the fable where a deity offers a man who lost his sword a gold one, a silver one, and his original iron one. Because he chose the simple iron one, he received all three. But the one who greedily grabs for the gold sword ends up with nothing. I don't want that to happen to anyone.

In this world, we don't live alone; we live together. I don't need to teach the KIA this; General Gun Maw and General N'Ban La know this better than I do.

Q: Finally, is it necessary to place the military under civilian government control? If so, why?

A: This is a structure that has existed since ancient times. The military must serve under the "Ruler" (the Sovereign). Generals are subordinates to the Sovereign. Whether to keep a general or not depends on the Ruler. However, the Ruler must have the "Virtues of a King," and the Generals must have the "Virtues of a General." Each has their place.

I’m not speaking religiously here. Look at Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. It states that winning a war depends on five factors. Two of the most important are:

The Ruler (The Way): This is the political policy and morality of the leader. If the entire population supports the leader and is willing to follow them even unto death, victory is certain.

The General: The commander’s ability is also vital.

While both the Ruler and the General are crucial, the Ruler must be at the top.

Discussions on Federalism in progress

Q: Do you see that kind of structure emerging in the current Myanmar political landscape?

A: Even George Washington became President. I'm not saying it can't happen here. But remember, when George Washington became President, he didn't rule America like he was commanding an army. That is worth remembering.

Q: If the military stays above the civilian government instead of under it, what happens to the country?

A: That contradicts the traditional wisdom of our elders, so it’s hard for such a system to be sustainable. Our country's failure to thrive is primarily because the military has stayed in a superior position. We must not forget that since 1962, as the military took the upper hand, our country went from being very wealthy to being very poor.

Q: Do you have any additional comments?

A: I think the main problem—and I might be wrong—is that we tend to make things more complicated while trying to solve them. I heard President Donald Trump say that the situation in Iraq was bad before they attacked, but it became much worse after.

This happens when the wrong methods are used for a solution. If we act out of fear and hatred instead of using the right methods, the country will never improve. If we have loving-kindness for one another and discard anger, we can solve any national problem.

Foreign peace experts have told me they've never seen a people as politically savvy and knowledgeable as those in Burma. Every group is full of political "doctors." But their problem is that instead of discussing to reach an agreement, they spend all their time trying to "win" the debate. When they can't win the debate, they take up arms.

That is why our country needs to move away from the culture of "Debate" (trying to beat the other side) and toward "Dialogue" (searching for the truth together). Whether it was President U Thein Sein or whoever else, we started talking about a new culture of solving political problems through discussion rather than force in 2011. It has been 15 years now. We haven't fully implemented it yet. I urge everyone: it is time to make it happen.

CNI News

March 6, 2026

U Khun Sai, a participant in the peace process, told CNI News that the incoming new government should follow a non-aligned policy between its powerful neighbors, China and India.

He warned that if the country leans entirely toward one side, Myanmar will remain a nation in name only.

"If we do that, two things could happen," U Khun Sai said. "One is that our country remains only in name. Practically, it would belong to others. On the positive side, one might hope that after nearly 80 years of failing to achieve peace through self-rule, falling under another country's influence might bring peace similar to theirs. That’s one perspective.

The other is that if we align strictly with either India or China, and those two remain at odds, we will suffer the fallout. If we can maintain friendship with both, we have nothing to worry about. We must proceed with a non-aligned policy. Currently, while most people reject many sections of the 2008 Constitution, the principles that the country is a non-aligned state and that no foreign troops shall be stationed on our soil are points everyone can agree on. These should continue."

Indian Prime Minister Modi and Myanmar's Acting President Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

Military and political analysts point out that while both nations have played crucial roles in Myanmar’s affairs since the 2021 political shift, their approaches differ significantly.

China holds the greatest influence over Myanmar's affairs. Its key interests include:

The China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC). The Kyaukphyu Deep Sea Port and oil/gas pipelines. Significant influence over the Northern Alliance ethnic armed groups.

In current border conflicts, China acts as a mediator to protect its interests. On the international stage, such as at the UN, China acts as a staunch partner, using its veto power to shield the Myanmar government from pressure.

India strives to maintain ties with Myanmar to ensure the stability of its northeastern states. India's primary concerns are: Countering Chinese influence.

Preventing Indian separatist groups from taking refuge along the Myanmar border.

Consequently, India keeps communication lines open with the Myanmar military. Projects like the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project and the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway are vital to India’s "Act East" policy. While India, as the world's largest democracy, often voices support for Myanmar’s democratic transition, it does not intervene as publicly in internal affairs as China does.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Myanmar's Acting President Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

A political analyst told CNI News that while the new government’s policy might be to treat both nations fairly, the neighbors' policies toward Myanmar could shift. He warned that choosing a single path could lead to greater trouble.

"If the government chooses just one side, it will face more difficulties," the analyst said. "For example, if it aligns too closely with India on competitive issues—like natural gas sales—it could cause problems with China. China might tolerate a road project through Rakhine and Chin states to Assam and Manipur because that primarily concerns India. But if Myanmar gives India something that directly competes with Chinese interests, China won't be happy. They won't say it directly, but they will express their dissatisfaction in whatever way they can.

I don't think the policy of the next government will differ much from the current military government’s approach. They will likely try to balance both sides. However, the challenge is that the policies of these two giants toward us may change."

Analysts highlight that Myanmar’s current challenge is a "tug-of-war" of perceptions: India fears Myanmar leaning too far toward China, while China is displeased if Myanmar gets too close to India.

This is most evident in Rakhine State, which hosts both China's Kyaukphyu project and the Sittwe Port—the most critical component of India's Kaladan project. However, under current ground conditions, China appears to have a greater capacity for practical intervention.

CNI News

March 5, 2026

Ambassadors from Saudi Arabia and Nicaragua presented their credentials to Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Chairman of the State Security and Peace Commission, on March 5, 2026.

Nicaragua appointed H.E. Mr. Segundo Martin Calero Escorcia as the Ambassador to Myanmar, who formally presented his credentials to the Senior General.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia appointed H.E. Mr. Maziad Mohammed M Al Howishan as the Ambassador to Myanmar, who also presented his credentials to Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

The Nicaraguan Ambassador presenting his credentials to Senior General Min Aung Hlaing

Following the presentation, they discussed:

Opportunities for increasing bilateral investments and trade promotion.

The status of the upcoming parliamentary session to be convened in the near future.

CNI News

March 5, 2026

The Myanmar Fuel Oil Importers and Distributors Association (MPTA) issued an announcement on March 5, 2026, stating that fuel shortages in Myanmar are absolutely impossible due to the continuous arrival of oil tankers.

The association urged the public not to waste time waiting in lines out of unnecessary concern.

The MPTA highlighted that they are importing and distributing fuel to the public under the guidance of the Fuel Oil Import, Storage, and Distribution Supervisory Committee.

Official Statement Highlights

"While there may be some temporary delays in importing fuel from abroad due to current events in the Middle East, we have already pre-arranged sufficient reserve fuel to ensure continuous distribution according to public demand. Furthermore, as oil tankers are arriving without interruption, we inform the public that there is absolutely no possibility of a fuel shortage in Myanmar."

The association has requested that the public:

Remain calm and avoid worrying about fuel supplies.Purchase only the amount required for personal use.Refrain from wasting time queuing at stations unnecessarily, as there is an ample supply of fuel available.

CNI News

March 5, 2026

Chin State, one of the westernmost states in Myanmar, serves as a vital "Western Gateway," making it a key player in the current Myanmar political landscape, according to U Soe Htet, Chairman of the New Chin State Congress (NCC).

Speaking to CNI News, he stated:

"Our Chin State stretches vertically from north to south and acts as the Western Gateway. Because of this, we share borders with both India and Bangladesh. We also connect with areas controlled by the Arakan Army (AA) in Rakhine State for about 100 miles. We share approximately 46 miles of border with Bangladesh. Paletwa alone shares a 45-mile stretch with India, and the upper regions share many more miles with India. Being the gateway to India, Bangladesh, and Rakhine State makes Chin State a critically important strategic point for Myanmar."

Since 2021, Chin State has emerged as a major stronghold for the Spring Revolution. Military and political analysts point out that the resistance from local defense forces (CDF/CNA) plays a pivotal role in the country's political turning point.

View of Hakha City, Chin State.

The situation in Chin State significantly impacts the nation's overall military and political trajectory. Furthermore, Chin State is seen as indispensable for the success of India's "Act East Policy." Analysts believe that if Chin State remains unstable, Myanmar's Western Gateway will effectively be closed.

On February 5, 2026, Lt. Gen. Gun Maw of the KIA stated that they are prioritizing efforts regarding Chin State. He expressed belief that Chin State's resources could lead to nationwide success and asserted that they are working diligently for the complete liberation of the state.

However, Pu Pu Htan, spokesperson for the Zomi National Party (ZNP), told CNI News that India's interests are heavily tied to Chin State and expressed concern regarding Lt. Gen. Gun Maw's statements.

Myanmar is sandwiched between India and China.

India's security and economic interests rely heavily on Chin State.

Even during WWII, Chin State was a strategic route for military operations.

Pu Pu Htan warned that if the scenario described by Lt. Gen. Gun Maw unfolds, it could pose significant dangers.

The Myanmar-India Ledo Road.

Currently, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) is executing the "Ka Thone Lone" Operation (Kantbalu-Kawlin-Katha) in the Sagaing Region. Lt. Gen. Gun Maw has revealed plans to control both Northern and Lower Myanmar once these areas are secured.

To achieve this, the KIA is providing arms and ammunition to: The Arakan Army (AA), Chin National Front (CNF),Naga armed groups,People's Defense Forces (PDF) within the Sagaing Region.

If the KIA successfully controls the northwestern corridor of Myanmar, it would gain a route from landlocked regions to sea access, potentially allowing for direct diplomatic relations with Western and European nations. This could empower the KIA to pursue military, political, and economic autonomy, or even secession.

Lt. Gen. Gun Maw reminded the public during the Kachin Revolution Day ceremony on February 5, 2026, that during a meeting with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in 2018-2019, he stated they cannot promise not to secede.

CNI News

March 5, 2026

As political dialogues take place in Myanmar between the government, the military, political parties, and ethnic armed organizations, military and political analysts are questioning whether the agreements reached during these sessions should be transparently disclosed to the public.

Since February 1, 2021, the armed conflict in Myanmar has expanded significantly, leading to a proliferation of armed groups. Amidst this political and military turmoil, civilians have been forced to abandon their homes and property, fleeing to safer areas while facing constant life-threatening risks.

Political analyst Dr. An Kaw La told CNI News that political and peace talks must be based on the people's desire and agreements reached between the government organizations and armed groups must be rediscussed among the people.

"It is a fact that the process must ultimately go through the people. The public must be informed of certain data. However, the negotiation style is different. Detailed negotiations must initially follow a top-down approach at the expert level. For instance, ethnic groups have their own intellectuals, experts, and influencers. When the mainland calls for talks, they should speak at that top-level first. Once preliminary agreements are reached, the process should transition into public discussions. There are steps to this.

A Youth Peace Forum in progress.

In my view, experts should talk first to reach a draft agreement, and then bring it to the public to gain support. This is similar to a Law Referendum. If information is disclosed prematurely, it can be problematic because public awareness levels vary. Often, negotiations fail because groups with different levels of understanding intervene and disrupt them. Some people struggle with daily survival and may not have the capacity to process complex messages immediately. This needs to be carefully coordinated."

Military and political observers point out that in Myanmar, peace processes and political talks are traditionally kept secret. When disputes arise between groups, they often resort to mutual accusations of breaking agreements. Analysts argue that instead of dragging the public into conflicts to gain a tactical advantage, the public should be informed to foster a constructive path forward.

U Khun Sai, a participant in the peace process, emphasized to CNI News that disclosing essential details from peace talks to the public is absolutely vital.

A Youth Peace Forum in progress.

"Informing the public is essential. We did this during the NCA (Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement) negotiations. As far as I know, the KNU, RCSS, and SSPP all conducted public consultations. The public shouldn't just be listeners; they should have the opportunity to offer suggestions. However, the authorities in Naypyidaw often viewed these public engagements with suspicion, fearing they were being used for recruitment rather than peace advocacy, which led to interference and blockades. We must work to prevent such patterns from repeating."

Myanmar’s 2025 General Election was held in three phases from December 28, 2025, to January 25, 2026. Following this:

The Third Pyithu Hluttaw (House of Representatives) and Amyotha Hluttaw (House of Nationalities) sessions are scheduled for March 16 and 18, 2026.

A new government is expected to be formed in April 2026.

Analysts suggest that once a civilian government emerges, a new wave of peace negotiations between ethnic armed organizations and the Myanmar military is likely to follow.

CNI News

March 5, 2026

Military and political alysts are raising questions regarding whether the various armed organizations in Myanmar are truly working for the benefit of the public or merely pursuing their own self-interests.

Political analyst U Htet Aung Kyaw told CNI News that while everyone carrying a weapon claims to be doing so for the people because it sounds good to the ear, it is the civilians who are left to bear the consequences.

"The people are the priority. Everyone carrying a weapon says 'it's for the people' because it’s a pleasant thing to say. However, if they are truly working for the people, one must ask why the public is the only side suffering and mired in endless trouble? They claim to be working for the masses, revolting for the masses, or on the other hand, protecting the masses—yet only the people suffer. This needs a serious rethink. Where there is a problem, there is a solution. The issue is that everyone is busy pointing fingers and blaming each other. If there is a genuine desire for change and a will to make things better, these are not impossible tasks. Because of the weight of this civil war and the abundance of empty promises, no one really believes them anymore. I want to ask those holding guns: give us a reason to believe you, just once. That’s all."

Armed group leaders holding a conference.

Political analysts point out that since the political shifts of 2021, armed conflict has expanded across Myanmar, reaching regions and states that had never experienced fighting before. They argue that attempting to solve armed conflict with more weapons will not yield results for generations to come.

Currently, the impact of the war includes: Over 4 million internally displaced persons (IDPs).

Hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed by fire. Significant numbers of civilian casualties.

U Htet Aung Kyaw further emphasized that open verbal debate about the vision for the country is the best path forward.

A scene from the signing of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA).

"War requires sacrificing lives and money on both sides. Instead of that, it would be best to openly argue with words about what kind of nation we envision. If we can develop the habit of accepting a logical and reasonable argument rather than just insisting on being right, then no matter how much we argue, it’s not a problem. If we debate with the mindset of finding a solution, we can move forward. If one feels that the current actions only result in harming the people, there is no reason to be afraid of debate. We must debate for the sake of the people. If they are brave enough to kill each other with guns, why would they be afraid to argue with words? They must speak."

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing has stated that ethnic unity is vital for ending internal armed conflicts and is a major driving force for national development. He urged ethnic brothers to remove suspicions, build trust through negotiation, and work toward achieving eternal peace.

CNI News

4 March 2026

Political analyst U Kyaw Htet told CNI News that it is necessary to enact a law capable of taking action against any organization that violates the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA).

He stated that the agreements within the NCA are not matters to be conducted solely with the Military (Tatmadaw) but with the State. He noted that because there were no provisions on how to penalize violations after signing the NCA, groups have been fluctuating between withdrawing from and participating in the agreement.

"The NCA agreement is not a matter just for the military; it is a matter for the State. If NCA rules are violated, the military must take action on behalf of the State. Currently, we only have the signing of the NCA. I view the reversal [of peace] as happening because there are no specific legal provisions on how to take action if violations occur after signing. Whether it is the government or Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs), there needs to be a law in the country stating that the State will take action against anyone who does not follow the NCA. It can be analyzed that violations are happening easily because these laws do not exist. Furthermore, federal rights need to be granted. There needs to be an 'open-palm' [generous] approach. It needs to be enacted according to the law and by the Parliament. Otherwise, questions arise over who is doing what and which group is being represented, creating a political landscape where conflicts are manufactured as desired," U Kyaw Htet said.

Scene from an NCA anniversary event

During the administration led by U Thein Sein in 2011–2012, bilateral ceasefire agreements were signed at the state and union levels with 14 EAOs. Discussions for the NCA began in 2013, and a draft was reached in August 2015.

Subsequently, the following groups signed the NCA:

October 15, 2015: KNU, RCSS, ALP, DKBA, KNU/KNLA-PC, PNLO, CNF, and ABSDF.

February 13, 2018: NMSP and LDU.

Currently, the KNU, CNF, and ABSDF have withdrawn from the NCA and are engaged in active combat with the Myanmar military.

U Khun Sai, who is involved in the peace process, told CNI News that proceeding with the previous NCA framework will no longer be effective and that the negotiation frameworks need to be revised.

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and leaders of armed organizations seen together

"It would be good to have [a law]. Regarding this matter, it’s important to know what constitutes a violation. You can't just blame one side; it can happen on both sides. If penalties are to be imposed, everyone needs to realize that 'it’s not just him who will suffer, but me too.' There are currently two ways to think about this. One is to punish the offender. If they correct their mistakes because of the punishment, that’s good. However, if they respond to punishment by turning back to armed resistance, we must consider in advance how to handle that. If we don't think ahead, instead of solving the problem, it will make it worse. That is the problem with our country," U Khun Sai explained.

He added, "The situation has changed significantly. Back then, there were 21 armed groups nationwide, but now there are hundreds. In a situation where there are hundreds of groups, it is impossible to carry out the NCA according to its original process. This needs to be amended. Primarily, we need to revise the negotiation framework. While the framework isn't directly inside the NCA, it is the framework that arose from it."

In the NCA signed between EAOs and the Myanmar Military-Government-Parliament, there are no specific provisions regarding under what conditions a group has the right to withdraw or is prohibited from doing so.

Furthermore, because there is no mechanism to take action against those who breach the contract, the NCA is often interpreted arbitrarily, leading to mutual accusations of violations and ongoing disputes.