I think Myanmar’s an interesting mediation case study. Key questions: Why hasn’t Myanmar conflict had a mediator? Does it need one? Traditional answer to both questions the same: No, because it’s a home grown peace process (mediators get very excited about this btw). But... 1/6 https://twitter.com/adamtalkspeace/status/1275770436186497026

... I think that’s the right answer to the first question, but not to the second one. The reason I don’t think a mediator would be helpful in Myanmar is that I don’t think a peace process is what’s needed. Heresy, I hear you say! 2/6

Why not? Because the Myanmar civil war in many ways isn’t really a civil war. It’s not even a collection of different civil wars. It’s something else, much more complicated. (Consider: places where there isn’t fighting may pose bigger challenges than places where there is) 3/6

A slightly (only slightly) better way of describing it is that Myanmar needs a nation building process. Hence, not a mediator, but a nationbuilder. That TOR doesn’t exist. Also, it can’t really be done by outsiders in any case, as recent global history has reinforced. 4/6

Many things have been tried: 4 cuts (nope); coopting armed group elites (made things worse); democracy (didn’t help); federalism (won’t happen and won’t help); one-country-two-systems-Wa-style (many others aspire to it, but not sustainable, and only works for the Wa elite) 5/6

I don’t have the magic answer, but I do think the right diagnosis is critical, and we are far from having it. So, it’s an interesting case study in the limits of peace processes and mediation. 6/6