INTRODUCTION

The 1 February 2021 coup in Myanmar has forced a reckoning over how to build solidarity across difference, including across ethnic divides. Days after the coup, protesters thronged the streets of major cities. Although they were united by a desire to fell the State Administration Council (SAC) junta, their demands diverged in other respects. In predominantly Bamar areas such as Yangon and Mandalay, protesters wore red, symbolizing the ousted National League for Democracy (NLD). By contrast, many protesters in the ethnic states wore black, seeking to denounce the Tatmadaw without aligning themselves with the NLD. More than 750 protesters have since died at the hands of the military regime. Moreover, at the end of March, the Tatmadaw launched airstrikes in Karen State, on the Myanmar-Thailand border, displacing 30,000 civilians over two weeks. These strikes marked a new phase in the seven-decade-long conflict between the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Tatmadaw.

The coup regime is escalating armed violence on two fronts: against urban protesters and against ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) operating in Myanmar's contested borderlands. As a result, questions about how to build interethnic solidarity among a diverse set of anti-coup actors, including protesters, ousted NLD leaders, and EAOs are becoming increasingly pertinent. However, many international actors prefer to denounce the junta rather than recognize the existence of armed groups and ethnic diversity within the country. In other words, international actors tend to retain a focus on the central state, overlooking the violence suffered by people on the country's periphery. They thus also overlook significant opportunities for leverage against the coup regime. Chances of overthrowing that regime and securing a new, peaceful future for Myanmar are best improved through the forging of solidarity across entrenched differences.

A failure to see Myanmar's centre and periphery as relationally constituted has already had great costs. A decade of donor support for central government reforms has failed to resolve the grievances of the country's conflict-affected populations. To the contrary, the failure of the donor-funded peace process to reach a meaningful resolution has accentuated borderland populations’ mistrust of the Union government.