Bilateral Ceasefires: Fragmentation of Elusive Peace Process in Myanmar

“Bilateral Ceasefires: Fragmentation of Elusive Peace Process in Myanmar” was published by the Institute for Strategy and Policy – Myanmar (ISP-Myanmar) on June 3, 2026. This report covers the period between February 1, 2021, to March 31, 2026. This research is part of the ongoing research conducted by the ISP-Myanmar’s Conflict, Peace and Security Studies.

▪️Executive Summary

This report explores the significant transformation of Myanmar’s ceasefire landscape following the 2021 military coup up until March 2026. The State Administration Council (SAC) has systematically moved away from the multilateral Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) framework and adopted a strategy of bilateral ceasefires with selected Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs). These new ceasefire arrangements are largely devoid of political content or inclusive participation and are being used as instruments of conflict management, fragmentation, and regime consolidation, rather than as genuine steps toward peace or federal democratic transformation.

Drawing on relevant theoretical frameworks such as Horowitz’s theory of divide-and-rule, Darby and Mac Ginty’s model of inclusive peace processes, Zartman’s ripeness theory, and Mampilly’s work on rebel governance, the report presents a three-chapter empirical analysis. Chapter 1 examines how bilateralism has displaced the political and institutional foundations of the NCA, leading to a fragmented and depoliticized ceasefire system. Chapter 2 (section 2.2) analyzes the SAC’s divide-and-rule tactics, which selectively empower certain groups while sidelining actors aligned with the National Unity Government (NUG) and People’s Defense Forces (PDFs), thus weakening collective resistance. Chapter 2 (section 2.3) investigates the role of regional actors, particularly China, in shaping ceasefire dynamics that prioritize border stability and strategic interests over inclusive political solutions. Chapter 2 (section 2.4) looks at how these ceasefires are reshaping the governance behavior of EAOs, pulling them away from national-level transformation and confining them to localized administrative roles under SAC control.

Across all chapters, the report finds that ceasefires in the post-coup context are being used to contain conflict, co-opt opposition forces, and delay political transition. Far from promoting peace, they have served to undermine unity among resistance actors, reduce the leverage of political stakeholders, and entrench authoritarianism. The analysis concludes that the SAC’s ceasefire strategy represents a shift from flawed but inclusive peacebuilding to authoritarian conflict management, where deals are made to manage resistance rather than to resolve the structural causes of Myanmar’s protracted conflict.

The report concludes that these post-coup ceasefires do not promote peace or federal democracy, but rather serve as tactical instruments designed to contain conflict and entrench military rule; without a fundamental reconfiguration of this ceasefire paradigm, Myanmar risks deepening its cycle of militarized authoritarianism and missing yet another opportunity for national reconciliation and democratic renewal.

Bilateral Ceasefires: Fragmentation of Elusive Peace Process in Myanmar