_edited.png)
Why Chauvinists and the Military Dictatorship Reject ‘High Autonomous Status’ for National Minorities in Myanmar
Kyaw Zan, Opinion, October 25, 2026
The remarks by Chinese Foreign Ministry Special Envoy for Asian Affairs Deng Xijun on the necessity of granting “high autonomous status” to national minorities in Myanmar have become a subject of political debate.
His remarks during the recent Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) ceremony should be understood as a friendly gesture from a neighboring country that wants to see peace and stability in Myanmar. Although the details of his proposal remain unclear and require further clarification, the idea of greater autonomy deserves serious consideration rather than immediate rejection.
The main problem in Myanmar is the refusal of ethnic Bamar chauvinists and the military dictatorship to accept the political rights of other nationalities. Their political thinking is rooted in the belief that the country must remain under centralized control, with minority nationalities denied the right to manage their own affairs. So-called federal reforms under the current military government cannot be trusted, as it continues to bomb civilian targets using indiscriminate and disproportionate force.
Even the groups that signed the NCA are now willing to return to armed rebellion to achieve meaningful autonomy. Thus, the NCA and the peace process have become more like deceptive tactics to prolong military rule and divide ethnic groups through a divide-and-rule strategy. This attitude has contributed to long-standing political conflicts and the marginalization of ethnic communities. Instead of recognizing diversity as a foundation for a peaceful union, chauvinist leaders continue to treat demands for autonomy as a threat to national unity.
For the Arakanese, the question of autonomy is closely connected to their historical experience. Arakan had its own kingdom and enjoyed political independence in the past. Therefore, the demand for meaningful autonomy is not simply a political ambition but also a question of historical recognition and the right to determine their own future.
The same principle should apply to other nationalities, including the Shan, Kachin, Kokang, Ta’ang, Wa and Karen. Granting them substantial autonomy would allow these communities to protect their identities, manage their regional affairs and participate in political arrangements that reflect their own needs. Such an approach could help address the roots of conflict and create a stronger foundation for peace and stability.
Against this background, the criticism of Deng Xijun’s remarks by the pro-military Eleven Media Group is particularly concerning. Rather than considering whether greater autonomy could contribute to resolving Myanmar’s conflicts, such criticism risks undermining an important discussion about political solutions.
It also raises questions about whether the position expressed by pro-military media reflects the thinking of the military leadership itself. At a time when northern Shan State remains important to stability along the Chinese border, rejecting proposals for greater autonomy could further complicate efforts to reduce conflict and build trust.
The military leadership’s relationship with China also deserves scrutiny. When facing serious difficulties, Myanmar’s military leaders have sought Chinese assistance. Yet their current political calculations appear to involve turning towards Western powers in pursuit of closer cooperation, potentially at the expense of Chinese interests in the region. If the military government seeks international support while rejecting proposals that many ethnic nationalities consider reasonable, its approach risks damaging the trust of both neighboring countries and local communities.
For many national minorities, including the Arakanese, the idea of “high autonomous status” offers a basis for discussing a political future in which their rights and regional interests receive meaningful recognition. The central issue is not whether Myanmar should remain united, but whether unity should be built through coercion or mutual respect. A union that denies nationalities the right to manage their own affairs will continue to face resistance, while one that recognizes their political aspirations has a better chance of achieving lasting stability.
Ultimately, rejecting greater autonomy does not resolve Myanmar’s political crisis. It preserves the conditions that have allowed conflict and mistrust to continue. If Myanmar’s military leaders and chauvinist forces genuinely seek peace, they must stop treating autonomy as an enemy of national unity.
They should instead recognize it as a possible foundation for a more inclusive political future. Dismissing China’s proposal without serious discussion risks weakening prospects for peace while increasing uncertainty for regional security, Chinese investments and Chinese personnel in Myanmar.
