PEACEWORKS 92 Ethnic nationalities have long desired a political dialogue process in which their historical grievances can be aired and root causes of conflict with the state resolved. the perspective of ethnic nationalities interviewed for this study, these guarantees were never fulfilled, invoking a series of armed independence movements that are some of the longest running insurgencies in modern history. Wary of disintegration of the Union, Myanmar’s leadership has at times sought to galvanize national solidarity by a policy of Burmanization, whereby Bamar language and culture and Buddhist religion have been promoted to the exclusion of other ethnic identities. For ethnic nationality interviewees, this policy has been part of a Bamar tendency toward paternalism over the country’s ethnic nationalities. For their part, non-Bamar ethnic groups and their associated armed groups have found unity in ethno-nationalist identities with distinct languages, cultures, and versions of history. Both sets of identities are highly militarized. Ethnic nationalities reject the notion of a Bamar-Buddhist national identity and have a tendency to see the peace overtures of the present government as a continuation of the Bamar imperialism of the past. A remark from a member of a nonstate armed group was typical of this sentiment: “Bamar people don’t try to understand ethnic people. They know there are ethnic people and they don’t want separation, but they don’t want solutions.” Political exclusion is a second pillar of ethno-political conflict, according to interviewees. Although some ethnic political parties have been established and hold seats in parliament, many ethnic representatives (including members of NSAGs) have been unable to represent their communities in politics. Ethnic nationalities have long desired a political dialogue process in which their historical grievances can be aired and root causes of conflict with the state resolved. The cease-fires of the 1990s ended violence in parts of the country but did not create peace precisely because the political dialogue in relation to fundamental autonomy and identity issues never materialized. The same risk is true of the current cease-fire process initiated by the Thein Sein government in 2011. Without a political process to address root causes, cease-fires will address symptoms but never the causes of ethno-political conflict. Signs in late 2013 that a roadmap for political dialogue might soon be agreed on as part of a nationwide cease-fire agreement are encouraging. Control of resources is a third pillar and increasingly significant. One interviewee described this problem as the “orientation of access to resources around ethnic identity.” The parts of the country populated by Myanmar’s non-Bamar ethnic groups are rich in natural resources but relatively poor in terms of average income and quality of life. This reality is a source of grievance for the non-Bamar ethnic representatives interviewed. For some NSAGs natural resources have historically also provided a source of income to maintain the insurgency against the military government. Some groups, particularly in Shan State, have weak political objectives at best and can be more accurately described as armed criminal networks that profit from legal or illegal trade. In the current cease-fire process, as in the 1990s, natural resources are fueling conflict by opening opportunity for military and business investors to profit from land and natural resource projects, causing land grabbing, displacement, environmental degradation, and erosion of confidence in the peace process. Development projects such as Shwe gas pipeline and the Myitsone Dam have become rallying points for affected communities. Resource sharing and land reform will be another important element of safeguarding Myanmar’s peace process. According to interviewees, peoples’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in relation to ­ethno-political conflict are an outcome of lived experience and government control of the information system. Promotion of Bamar majority, language and culture was formerly a state policy, as reflected in the education system and state institutions, including the state-run ­media. On the other hand, and according to some participants, the military government was conditioned to fear and protect against ethnic secession from the Union. In the words of a local 10  USIP.ORG