Independence, Not Federalism: Why Burma’s Ethnic Nations Reject the NUG and It’s Federal Trap
Since the 2021 coup in Burma (Myanmar), much of the international community has looked to the National Unity Government (NUG) as a beacon of democratic resistance to the military junta. Promising to replace dictatorship with “federal democracy,” the NUG has gained sympathy abroad. But within Burma, particularly among the country’s diverse ethnic nations (Karen, Karenni, Kachin, Arakan, Mon, Shan, Cin et al), that promise rings hollow and deceptive.
For ethnic groups who have endured generations of war, betrayal, and marginalization, the NUG’s vision of unity feels dangerously familiar—another Bamar-dominated power structure attempting to dictate the future under the guise of inclusion. Increasingly, these communities are rejecting the federalism being offered and instead asserting a clear alternative: independence, self-rule, and a cooperative of equal nations.
The False Promise of Federalism
Federalism has long been dangled before the ethnic peoples of Burma like a carrot on a stick—always just out of reach. The 1947 Panglong Agreement was the first such promise, offering ethnic states the right to secede and self-govern. But General Aung San’s assassination led to those promises dying on paper, as Bamar elites consolidated power.
Later, during the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) era in the 2010s, the military once again pledged federal reform. What followed instead was the militarization of ethnic regions, extractive development, forced displacement, and divide-and-conquer tactics through the Border Guard Forces program. Federalism was not a pathway to peace—it was a tool for control.
That legacy hasn’t changed. Ethnic people know that every time "federalism" is introduced by the center, it ends up reinforcing the dominance of Naypyidaw and the Bamar elite. It has become, simply, a trap to Burmanize the ethnic nations.
The NUG: A New Face, Same Foundation
While the NUG claims to represent a clean break from military rule, its leadership and structure have not earned the trust of ethnic groups. Many key figures were part of the National League for Democracy (NLD), a civilian government that defended military atrocities against the Rohingya, marginalized ethnic voices in parliament, and upheld the military’s 2008 constitution.
Today, the NUG’s so-called “Federal Democracy Charter” was drafted without full participation from ethnic nations and assumes that all peoples should submit to a new centralized framework—designed, again, by the Bamar majority to Burmanize the ethnic people. This is not true federalism. It is assimilation rebranded. They demand one language, one religion, one culture, which is ethnic cleansing by definition.
Ethnic armed organizations and political councils—including the Karenni Interim Executive Council, the Chinland Council, and others—have already rejected the NUG’s charter and declared their own interim governance structures. Their message is clear: the future will not be decided by those who oppressed them for decades, no matter how they rebrand themselves.
Independence as the Just Path Forward
For many ethnic nations, federalism is not only untrustworthy—it is structurally flawed. Why should peoples who have preserved their cultures, languages, and identities through generations of warfare and genocide now agree to subordination under a “unity government” designed without their consent?
The alternative is not chaos. It is freedom.
Ethnic communities are now building functioning administrations, judicial systems, schools, and even foreign policy platforms. They do not seek seclusion—they seek sovereignty. Independence allows them to defend their land, govern in their own language, and develop their economies without exploitation.
This vision does not preclude cooperation. A confederation of free ethnic nations—each autonomous but united by shared values and mutual interests—could ensure collaboration on trade, security, environmental protection, and regional peace. But unlike the federal proposals of the past, this would be built on mutual respect, not top-down control.
Let the Bamar Govern the Bamar
The Bamar people should be free to govern themselves, in their own territory, under a system of their choosing. But they have no right to impose that system on the Karen, Shan, Mon, Kachin, Arakan, and Chin, or any other nation. Each ethnic group has the right to define its own future, its own laws, and its own destiny.
If there is to be peace in Burma, it must be based on one simple truth: There is no unity without equality—and no equality without independence.
“Any future built on justice must begin with the dismantling of the Burmese military’s monopoly on power—including the complete removal of its air power, which has been used to terrorize civilians and crush ethnic resistance. Without drastic reform and disarmament, especially of air capabilities, there can be no guarantee that the ethnic nations will not once again be overpowered and oppressed.
Conclusion: The Future Cannot Be Negotiated from the Past
The NUG’s attempt to rebuild Burma on the same broken foundations of forced federalism will only repeat the failures of history. Real change requires real courage—acknowledging that the Bamar-led systems of the past, including those dressed in democracy, have never delivered justice.
The ethnic nations of Burma are not waiting. They are rising, organizing, and declaring: “We are not part of your union—we are nations of our own.”
Let them lead themselves. The time for independence is now.
References
Foreign Policy. Why Ethnic Resistance in Myanmar Doesn’t Trust the NUG. October 29, 2024.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/29/myanmar-military-resistance-ethnic-minorities-rights-federalismCenter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Myanmar’s Governance Challenges.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/myanmars-governance-challengesU.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). New Data Show Wide Support for the NUG—But Ethnic Tensions Remain. February 2024.
https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/02/myanmar-new-data-show-wide-support-unity-governmentThe Irrawaddy. NUG Foreign Minister Discusses Gains, Challenges, and International Hurdles.
https://www.irrawaddy.com/in-person/interview/nug-foreign-minister-discusses-gains-challenges-and-international-hurdles.htmlInternal briefing: Historical Record of Federalism as a Tool of Control by Burmese Regimes (ChatGPT-compiled, based on verified historical analyses and peace process documentation)
Research input from ethnic leaders, activists, and community structures from Karenni, Chin, Shan, Kachin, and Mon regions (compiled 2023–2025)
