The Internal Conflicts in Myanmar: A Systemic Approach to Conflict Analysis and Transformation
Abstract
Myanmar’s internal conflicts, spanning over seven decades, remain among the most intractable globally. Rooted in ethnic marginalization, military dominance, and contested national identity, these conflicts involve multiple actors, including the Tatmadaw, Ethnic Armed Groups (EAGs), and marginalized minorities such as the Rohingya. This report applies Lederach’s conflict transformation theory and complexity theory to analyze systemic drivers of violence and explore potential pathways for peace. Utilizing secondary data from international reports, academic research, and media sources, this study highlights structural, political, and humanitarian challenges while providing policy-oriented recommendations for sustainable peace.
| Dimension | Key Insights | Implications |
| Duration of Conflict | 70+ years of protracted civil war | Long-term instability, international attention |
| Ethnic and Religious Dimensions | 68% Bamar majority; 32% non-Bamar minorities; Rohingya minority | Systemic exclusion, insurgency, refugee crises |
| Military Influence | Tatmadaw retains 25% parliamentary seats; controls key ministries | Limits civilian governance, obstructs peacebuilding |
| Peacebuilding Approach | Lederach’s conflict transformation; multi-track interventions | Requires long-term commitment, trust-building, and systemic reforms |
| International Role | ASEAN non-intervention; UN and NGOs concerned | Limited external pressure; neutral mediation essential |
1. Introduction
Myanmar’s conflict is characterized by complexity and systemic interaction among ethnic groups, military actors, and political elites. Since independence in 1948, ethnic insurgencies have erupted across Kachin, Shan, and Rakhine States, often triggered by identity-based grievances, territorial disputes, and economic marginalization.
| Conflict Level | Key Actors | Primary Issues | Consequences |
| Macro (State) | Tatmadaw, NLD, government ministries | Military dominance, constitutional constraints | Weak civilian governance, stalled democratization |
| Meso (Regional) | Ethnic armed groups (KIA, AA, UWSA) | Autonomy, resource control, political representation | Armed clashes, ceasefire violations, displacement |
| Micro (Community) | Rohingya, local Rakhine and Buddhist communities | Statelessness, religious discrimination, identity conflict | Ethnic violence, refugee crises, humanitarian emergencies |
Purpose of the Report: Examine systemic conflict dynamics in Myanmar and explore multi-track interventions for sustainable peace.
2. Methodology
The report relies on secondary data collected from academic journals, government reports, news media, and international organizations. Data was analyzed using conflict mapping, macro-meso-micro-level analysis, and complexity theory to highlight interlinked issues and propose systemic interventions.
| Method | Source Type | Analysis Approach | Output |
| Conflict Mapping | Academic research & UN reports | Identify actors, conflicts, and dynamics | Tables and visual maps of conflict systems |
| Secondary Data Review | Books, newspapers, websites | Historical and socio-political trends | Chronology of key events |
| Theoretical Framework | Lederach, complexity theory | Assess applicability to Myanmar | Policy recommendations and systemic interventions |
3. National Political Conflict
Military dominance has historically shaped Myanmar’s governance. From Ne Win’s 1962 coup to recent NLD victories, the Tatmadaw has constrained civilian governance while perpetuating ethnic and political conflicts.
| Time Period | Key Event | Actor Involvement | Impact on Civilians |
| 1962 | Military coup | Ne Win, Tatmadaw | Suppression of opposition, political killings |
| 1988 | 8888 Uprising | Students, NLD, Tatmadaw | ~3,000 deaths; rise of Aung San Suu Kyi |
| 2007 | Saffron Revolution | Buddhist monks, students, Tatmadaw | Up to 200 deaths; arrests of activists |
| 2010–2015 | Democratic reforms & elections | NLD, Tatmadaw | Partial liberalization; military retains 25% parliament seats |
| 2015 | NLD landslide | NLD, Tatmadaw | Major civilian government victory; Rohingya and ethnic exclusions |
4. Conflict Context and Structure
Myanmar’s conflicts are rooted in ethnic discrimination, military domination, and economic inequities. The lack of recognition for ethnic minorities and the military’s prioritization of strategic and economic interests reinforce persistent violence.
| Dimension | Key Issues | Impact on Peacebuilding |
| Ethnic Identity | 68% Bamar majority; 32% non-Bamar minorities; Rohingya | Undermines trust and cooperation |
| Economic Interests | Resource-rich ethnic regions | Fuels insurgencies and territorial disputes |
| Governance | Military dominance & limited reforms | Weak institutional capacity; corruption |
| International Response | ASEAN non-intervention, selective sanctions | Minimal pressure for genuine reform |
5. Conflict Dynamics
Myanmar’s conflicts follow a retaliatory spiral, with each party responding to perceived threats or past grievances. Attempts at ceasefires often fail due to lack of trust and political commitment.
| Conflict Party | Objective | Strategy | Outcome |
| Tatmadaw | Maintain territorial and political control | Military offensives, ceasefires as tactical tool | Ethnic insurgencies continue |
| Kachin Independence Army | Autonomy & ethnic rights | Armed resistance, negotiations | Ceasefires repeatedly broken |
| Rohingya | Citizenship & protection | Advocacy, refugee flight | Statelessness and persecution |
| Civil Society | Peacebuilding | Dialogue facilitation, humanitarian aid | Limited access due to restrictions |
6. Kachin Conflict
The KIA conflict demonstrates the failure of ceasefires and political negotiations due to mutual distrust, resource competition, and power imbalances.
| Actor | Objective | Key Issues | Conflict Outcome |
| KIA | Autonomy, ethnic rights | Land rights, resource control | Violent clashes since 2011 |
| Tatmadaw | Control strategic territories | Protect natural resources, political dominance | Civilian displacement, ceasefire violations |
| Local Population | Safety, livelihood | Forced recruitment, economic disruption | Refugee crises, humanitarian needs |
| International NGOs | Advocacy & aid | Limited access to conflict zones | Partial relief, minimal political leverage |
7. Rakhine State Conflict and Rohingya Displacement
| Year/Period | Trigger/Event | Groups Involved | Displacement Details |
| 2012 | Sectarian violence; military crackdowns | Rohingya Muslims, Rakhine Buddhists, Tatmadaw | ~86,000 fled by boat; ~22,500 internally displaced |
| 2017 | ARSA attacks; military “clearance operations” | Tatmadaw, ARSA, Rohingya civilians | Over 750,000 fled to Bangladesh |
| 2023–2024 | Renewed fighting between Arakan Army (AA) and Tatmadaw | AA, Tatmadaw, local civilians | ~350,000 displaced since Nov 2023; ~167,500 displaced in 2023; ~155,500 Rohingya still in camps since 2012 |
| Total Since 2012 | Cumulative impact of all conflicts | Rohingya Muslims, Rakhine Buddhists, Tatmadaw, AA | Over 1.3 million Rohingya forcibly displaced, temporary sheltered in Cox’s Bazar Bangladesh. |
8. The Rohingya Minority
Rohingyas have faced systematic denial of citizenship, ethnic violence, and statelessness, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. This conflict has international ramifications due to cross-border refugee movements.
| Dimension | Issue | Effect |
| Citizenship | Denied under 1982 Citizenship Law | Statelessness; lack of rights |
| Violence | Attacks by state & local actors | Mass displacement; refugee crisis |
| Humanitarian | Blockades & boycotts | Disease risk, limited aid |
| International Response | UN condemnation, regional concern | Limited intervention; refugee pushbacks |
9. Strategic Planning for Systemic Conflict Transformation
Applying Lederach’s conflict transformation theory, multi-track interventions are recommended to address structural inequities, governance, and trust-building.
| Intervention Track | Description | Expected Impact |
| Civil Society | Grassroots networks supported by international NGOs | Immediate peacebuilding; monitoring human rights |
| Political | Electoral and constitutional reform | Strengthened rule of law; reduced military dominance |
| Economic | Resource management & capacity building | Reduces incentives for insurgency; fosters development |
| International | Neutral mediators & observers | Facilitates dialogue; ensures transparency |
10. Challenges to Implementation
Challenges include resistance from powerful actors, skepticism of international involvement, and multi-actor coordination issues.
| Challenge | Cause | Potential Mitigation |
| Military resistance | Loss of political dominance | Gradual power-sharing, incentives for cooperation |
| Lack of trust | Historical grievances | Confidence-building measures; local dialogues |
| Multi-actor complexity | Ethnic, religious, and political diversity | Strong monitoring & phased implementation |
| International reluctance | Non-intervention norms | Neutral, culturally-sensitive mediation |
11. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
Conflict transformation offers long-term solutions, including reconciliation, governance reform, and multi-track engagement. Commitment from all stakeholders and systematic monitoring is essential for sustainable peace.
| Recommendation | Action Steps | Expected Outcome |
| Constitutional reform | Reduce military parliamentary seats | Strengthen civilian governance |
| Federalism & power-sharing | Local autonomy & liaison offices | Ethnic inclusion; reduce insurgency incentives |
| Multi-track intervention | Civil society, political, economic | Sustainable peace; trust-building |
| International engagement | Neutral mediation, observer missions | Enhance transparency; ensure impartiality |
| Humanitarian response | Sanitation, healthcare, refugee support | Reduce suffering; prevent disease & displacement |
References:
Aslam, R. (2014). The Role of Media in Conflict: Integrating Peace Journalism in the Journalism Curriculum. Aukland, New Zealand: Pacific Media Centre, Aukland University of Technology.
Barash, D. P. (2000). Preventing War: Building Negative Peace. In D. P. Barash, Approaches to Peace: A Reader in Peace Studies (pp. 61-64). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bonta, B. D. (1996). Conflict Resolution among Peace Societies: The Culture of Peacefulness. Journal of Peace Research, 33, 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033004003
Silverstein, J. (1981). Military Rule in Burma since 1962. Singapore: Lehman.
Silverstein, J. (1993). The Political Legacy of Aung San. New York: Cornell University Press.
Smith, M. (2007). State of Strife: The Dynamics of Ethnic Conflict in Burma. Washington DC: East-West Centre Press. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789812304803
Smith, M. (2015). Ethnic Politics in Myanmar: A Year of Tension and Anticipation. Southeast Asian Affairs, 48, 214-234.
Smith, M., & Ekeh, C. (2007). Minorities in Burma. London: Minority Rights Group International.
Spiller, P. (2002). Dispute Resolution in New Zealand. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swiss Peace (2016). Perspectives on the Myanmar Peace Process 2011-2015. Yangon: Swiss Peace.
Taylor, R. (2009). The State in Myanmar. Singapore: NUS Press.
Taylor, R. (2017). Myanmar’s Military and the Dilemma of Federalism. SEAS Visiting Senior Fellow. Singapore: Yusof Ishak Institute.
The Peace Process 2011 to 2015 (2018). Alliances for Gender Inclusion in Peace Process. https://www.agipp.org/en/peace-process-2011-2015
Tinker, H. (1967). The Union of Burma: A Study of the First Years of Independence. London: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, S. (2001). Burma: The Curse of Independence (pp. 8-9).
Varshney, A. (2009). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, London: Oxford University Press.
UNFPA, Myanmar Census Atlas (2014 Census). UNFPA- Myanmar
Cultural Atlas, Myanmar — Population Statistics (2023). Cultural Atlas
UNHCR, Special Report: Ending Statelessness Within 10 Years. UNHCR
Human Rights Watch, Rohingya: Denied Citizenship and Rights. Human Rights Watch
New Lines Institute, Statelessness – the Root Cause of the Rohingya Crisis. New Lines Institute
Myanmar Government, People & Society. Myanmar National Portal
About the Author
Mr Kaisayr Husein, both his Ph.D. in Education and International Relations and MA in Political Science and Public Administration research focused on the Rohingya identity, refugee crises, migration, legal rights, and citizenship issues. His research explores the longtime process of democracy development in Myanmar, conflict analysis, genocide studies, ethnic minority rights, religious discrimination, statelessness, and forced displacement, with particular case studies on the Rohingya crises in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Mr Kaisayr’s academic contributions extend to international refugee law (IRL), migration policy, legal status, and the historical context of Arakan.
Discover more from Rohingya Academic Research Institute
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
