By Nehginpao Kipgen

Just over a month after the announcement of the Barack Obama administration's nine-month long policy review on Myanmar (Burma), the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and his deputy Scott Marciel paid a two-day visit to the military-ruled country from Nov. 3 to 4.

Campbell and Marciel met with senior military junta officials and members of the opposition, including detained Aung San Suu Kyi as well as representatives of ethnic minority groups.

The administration announced on Sept. 23 that it will pursue a direct and high-level engagement with Myanmar, while retaining sanctions. Though the visit was a short one, it was a test of the engagement-sanction policy.

There are critics who argue that the U.S. high-level attention validates the brutality of the junta, which has waged war against its own people and imprisoned more than 2,200 political prisoners. Proponents of engagement, however, argue that the policy is a way forward to democratization for the country that has been under military rule since 1962.

The good news is that Suu Kyi, the opposition leader, welcomes engagement for the fact that it is designed to be inclusive of the State Peace and Development Council, the National League for Democracy, and the ethnic minorities.

The U.S. government and other international players need to understand the historical nature of conflicts in this ethnically diverse nation where there are ``135 races" ― according to government statistics ― which are primarily based on dialectical variations.

Before the British colonization in 1886, the territories of ethnic minorities (frontier areas) were not part of Myanmar proper. For example, the Shans were ruled by their own sawbwas (princes), and the Chins and Kachins were ruled by their own chiefs.

The 1947 Panglong Agreement served as the basis for the formation of the ``Union of Myanmar," and the country's independence from the British in 1948.

Many have often failed to understand the complexity of the conflicts in this Southeast Asian nation. Until recently, many thought the conflicts were entirely between the Myanmarese military junta and the opposition on the question of democracy.

The conflicts are largely the consequences of mistrust and misunderstanding between the majority ethnic Burmarn-led central government and other ethnic minorities because of the failure to implement the Panglong Agreement. One significant agreement was granting ``full autonomy'' to the frontier areas, which has not materialized as of yet.

The failure to implement this historic agreement has increased mistrust and misunderstanding between the successive ethnic Burmarn-led military governments and other ethnic nationalities. Autonomy has been the core demand of minorities for over 50 years since 1947, and continues to remain the fundamental issue.

Successful conflict resolution depends on the facilitation of open dialogue on the basis of equality between all the interested parties. Such open dialogue will yield results if the rights of all ethnic groups are respected, irrespective of political and religious affiliations. Equality of rights is one fundamental democratic principle that is missing in Myanmarese society today.

Myanmar's ethnic minorities are neither secessionists nor separatists, but are striving for autonomy in their respective territories within the Union of Myanmar. The minorities believe that self-determination would give them an opportunity to preserve their culture, language, and tradition.

There needs to be an environment where everyone receives equal treatment in the eyes of the law, regardless of the size of population. Under the military dictatorship, ethnic minorities are alienated and less privileged. This does not, however, advocate that ethnic Burmarns do not suffer under the military regime.

In the run-up to the proposed 2010 general election, the junta has stepped up military campaigns against ethnic minorities. The dismantling of the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, an ethnic Kokang armed group, in late September was an example.

With its sizeable army of over 400,000, and without foreign enemies, the junta has the power to cripple minorities militarily, but not necessarily the spirit of their core demand, which is autonomy.

To bring a long lasting solution to the decades-old conflicts, it needs the sincerity, honesty and participation of all ethnic groups. Different ethnic groups should be brought into confidence, and their legitimate demands should be looked into. The country needs reformation in various sectors ― both private and public. Political problems need to be resolved by political means.

Because of the protracted nature of the conflicts, there will be no quick fix or magical solution to the conflicts. It will require in-depth analysis, a systematic approach, and comprehensive remedial measures, including mediation and negotiation.

Because of its economic, political and military power, and the wide reception by the Myanmarese military junta and the opposition alike, the United States has the best leverage to help restore democracy in Myanmar. Any solution should somehow address the concerns of ethnic minorities, including a fundamental question on autonomy.

Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on the rise of political conflicts in modern Myanmar (1947-2004) and general secretary of the U.S.-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com). He has written numerous analytical articles on the politics of Myanmar and Asia for many leading international newspapers in Asia, Africa, and the United States of America.