Independence and Sovereignty

Hello friends.

Two posts in two weeks. I’m getting back up to speed!

Today, a short essay following on from the two publications I shared last week:

1. Revolutionary Regimes: Emerging Forms of Governance in Post-Coup Myanmar, with Ardeth M. Thawnghmung (ISEAS Singapore, March 2025),

&

2. Failing Assumptions and the “Post-Myanmar Turn” (‘Journal of Contemporary Asia’, February 2025)

First though, a quick update from the front-lines in Burma. In the past three weeks the Karen National Union’s Karen National Liberation Army Brigade Four and allied PDFs have liberated two important bases in Tanintharyi Region: Htee Hta (or Minthamee Hta) on 20 April, and Htee Kee on 9 May. These two largest settlements in KNU Mergui-Tavoy District were overrun by the Myanmar Army in 1997, and had been under military control ever since. The latest victory is particularly significant, as Htee Kee is a permanent international border crossing – the first to be taken by the KNU (notwithstanding the debacle at Myawaddy last year). No longer can it be said that the Brigade Four is lagging behind other revolutionary forces in the struggle against the SAC.

Bellay and I had been planning to get married in Htee Hta in 1997. Instead, we got married in Thailand. So this is a big deal for us.

On to today’s post:

Independence and sovereignty, Confederationism and bottom–up federalism

Prior to the 1 February 2020 coup, most ethnic nationalists in Burma (Myanmar) were committed to a federal political settlement to decades of deadly ethnic and state-society conflicts. However, federalism is a tool for self–determination, rather than an end in itself - a non-secessionist arrangement, providing significant local autonomy in political decision making, the security sector, administration, the economy and culture.

Before the coup, the emphasis was on ‘top–down’ or ‘holding together federalism’: decentralization through devolution, with the center conceding some level of local autonomy. Since the coup though, federalism is increasingly defined as a ‘bottom–up’ (or ground-up) phenomenon, also known as ‘coming together federalism’.

Some have gone further, insisting that now is the time to declare independence for ethnic nations. As a Karen friend put it: “Myanmar is dead; long live Kawthoolei!” According to this reading, resurgent ethnic nations should be regarded as independent (even sovereign) entities, rather than mere ‘state’ or ‘federal units’.

In the case of many ethnic nationality communities in Myanmar, autonomy is based on a history of state independence (e.g. Monland, Arakan). As discussed in the article with Thramu Ardeth, state units today are mostly under the control of Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs), which operate in the name of a specific group and its homeland. These are not ‘non-state armed groups’, but rather (ethnic) state armed forces. Other forms of post-coup governance include area-based bodies, such as the KSCC-IEC in Karenni, with more structural inclusion of civilians and local minorities. Indigenous forms of local governance also include community-level arrangements, and radical initiatives such as the Salween Peace Park in northern Karen State. Meanwhile, the Arakan Army has liberated nearly all of Rakhine State (and beyond!), for “the way of Rakhita”. The vision of restoring Arakan’s sovereignty through “confederationist” self-determination resonates strongly with other ethnic nationalist actors.

However, the concept and practice of confederationism have not always been clearly defined. Under a confederal system, state units enjoy high levels of independence, with their own armed forces and governance systems. Under confederationism therefore, state units are de facto independent entities - which may nevertheless choose to pool specific areas of sovereignty and/or administrative authority with other states, to form union-level bodies (e.g. in relation to currency and trade).

Any post–Myanmar states will need to cooperate on a range of issues (e.g. Arakan, Kachin and Ta’ang states have common interests in relation to gas pipelines to China). In practice, the difference between ethnic outright independence and confederation is quite minor.

Both confederationism and bottom-up federalism (‘ground-up federalism’ may be a better term) are based on the recognition and realities of local independence and de facto autonomy. That is, on effective sovereignty.

In both models, union-level structures depend on (or emerge from) resilient, autonomous state unit building blocks. Therefore, one of the key issues in ground-up federalism is how much union–level superstructure is developed, and how much sovereign power is ceded to the central/federal level.

Of course, one of the other great challenges is lack of international recognition for local independence. I will try to address this problem in a forthcoming post.

…

I’m planning to develop these paragraphs into a book chapter, and will also use some of the material in my forthcoming book (watch this space). Therefore, any feedback on the above would be very welcome.

I’m quite willing to hear that I’m completely wrong or misguided - but please explain why.

Share

Anyone wanting to donate to locally-led, trusted and capable earthquake relief efforts in Mandalay and Sagaing, please drop me a line - or give to the Free Burma Rangers:

https://www.freeburmarangers.org/donations/

BTW - You can still watch ‘Myanmar Army on the Ropes’, produced by me, Yan Naing and Tom Sheahan on the Al Jazeera YouTube channel.

These episodes and reflections will remain free to all Substack subscribers. I’m eventually going to start serializing Nancy and the Count, book one – the novel which predicted 1027! - and will ask for paid subscriptions.

Frogmort Press

Be Human - real books, no bots