Description
Abstract
Why does peace remain so elusive in contexts of long-term conflict? In many cases, the answer lies not in the absence of peace agreements, but in the fragmented social and political landscapes they attempt to unify. Myanmar exemplifies this challenge. Since independence, it has undergone three major peacebuilding efforts, each of which has collapsed. The most recent, the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), initially promised progress but ultimately unraveled—coinciding with a dramatic escalation of violence in regions previously untouched by civil war.
This paper reassesses the literature on protracted conflicts by foregrounding the role of sub-national variation. It argues that localized experiences of violence create microclimates of trust, distrust, and competing political orders, which complicate national-level peace processes. Using Myanmar as a case study, the paper analyzes the implementation of the NCA in Karen and Shan States. In Karen, the ceasefire fostered relative stability; in Shan, divide-and-rule tactics persisted, undermining collective peace efforts.
The NCA became a contested space where actors pursued divergent strategies, interpreted terms differently, and formed unstable alliances. Rather than producing consensus, the agreement exposed the fractured nature of Myanmar’s political terrain. Peace, in this context, was not a shared goal but a site of competition and failed cooptation.
By examining these dynamics, the paper calls for a more socially attuned and locally grounded approach to peacebuilding—one that recognizes the multiplicity of actors, histories, and interpretations embedded in protracted conflict.
