The ceasefire agreements of the 1990s allowed the military-state to avoid the kinds of expenditures that would be needed to curb internal conflict. At the same time, the reforms ultimately increased Tatmadaw presence throughout the country, especially in regions where ethnic resistance was present and persistent. This increased presence added pressure on armed ethnic groups, coercing them to accept the terms of Tatmadawdictated ceasefire agreements (Felbab-Brown, 2017). Despite the existence of ceasefire agreements, this improved the mobility of the military in case a tentative peace was broken. Regulated militarized territories guaranteed the Tatmadaw’s continuous presence and thus the means to monitor the everyday minutiae of Burmese civilian life. FelbabBrown (2017) notes a further incentive for ethnic groups to oblige the military: The Tatmadaw also reshuffled economic spoils among the insurgent groups, as a mechanism to reward the pliant and co-opted and to punish those who militarily or politically threatened local arrangements or engaged in military actions against the central government and the Tatmadaw. (p. 10) The military’s use of economic and political incentives in order to secure desired beneficial arrangements shows a pattern of Tatmadaw manipulation in pursuit of its own agenda. Regardless of claims that the military regime of the 1990s was devoted to eventual democratic change, there was still every intention to secure political and economic superiority. These tactics are still in use today as a mechanism of continued control but under the veil of democracy. Further evidence exists supporting the claim that military-sponsored ceasefire agreements exist with the primary goal of maintaining political control and power as well as creating an environment conducive to the economic growth of the military. The renegotiation of ceasefire deals in the late 1990s and early 2000s are indicative of a 73