Why Burma’s Civil War Became the Longest
The civil war in Burma, involving the Karen people, is one of the world’s longest-running armed conflicts. Its origins trace back to the post-independence years and have been shaped by decades of political betrayal, military aggression, and internal division.
1) Origins: 1948–49 and the Karen Turn to Armed Resistance
Tensions between Sitwundan militias and Karen communities escalated in late 1948, culminating in the Battle of Insein. On January 31, 1949, the Karen National Union (KNU) declared war against the Burmese government. The removal of General Smith Dun, a Karen, as army chief and his replacement by General Ne Win solidified the divide. The KNU adopted the four principles of Saw Ba U Gyi: “Surrender is out of the question; we shall retain our arms; we shall determine our destiny.”
2) 1962 Coup and the Entrenchment of Military Rule
On March 2, 1962, General Ne Win overthrew the democratically elected government of U Nu, forming the Union Revolutionary Council. While Cold War powers monitored the event closely, declassified U.S. diplomatic records indicate acknowledgment of the new regime rather than direct orchestration. Regardless of international involvement, the coup entrenched central military dominance and intensified campaigns against the Karen and other ethnic groups.
3) “Four Cuts,” Factional Splits, and the Fall of Manerplaw
The Tatmadaw introduced the “Four Cuts” strategy, designed to cut off food, funds, intelligence, and recruits to resistance forces. This policy devastated rural communities and fueled displacement. In 1994, internal divisions within the Karen movement, exacerbated by junta manipulation, led to the formation of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA). By January 1995, combined Tatmadaw–DKBA forces captured Manerplaw, the KNU’s political and military headquarters, marking a turning point in the struggle.
4) High Points and International Connections
The Karen Armed Organizations experienced some of their most favorable conditions during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. U.S. policy at the time was strongly anti-communist and supportive of global movements opposing authoritarian regimes. This period provided opportunities for increased visibility and solidarity among non-Burman nationalities.
The Karen, along with the Karenni, Kachin, Chin, and other ethnic nationalities, share a legacy of loyalty to the Allied cause during World War II. Notably, the Kachin people fought alongside the U.S. 101 Forces in northeast Burma and against Japanese positions extending into Yunnan Province, China. This shared history of cooperation forged deep ties between the U.S. military and non-Burman ethnic forces. Today, some descendants of Kachin veterans reside in California and remain vocal supporters of freedom movements in Burma.
5) The Strategic Value of a United Front
The experience of the Allied war effort and the solidarity shown by different ethnic groups underscore the value of a united non-Burman front. Cooperation between the Karen, Karenni, Kachin, Chin, Rakhine, and other nationalities could amplify their collective demands for autonomy, strengthen international advocacy, and present a more unified political case to global partners.
6) Ceasefires and Renewed Conflict (2012–2018)
The Hpa-an ceasefire of January 2012 and the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) of October 2015 temporarily reduced hostilities. However, continued road-building and troop deployments into Karen territories reignited fighting in 2018. The collapse of trust underscored the risks of agreements lacking enforceable guarantees of political autonomy.
7) Post-2021 Coup Escalation
Following the February 2021 coup, the KNU, along with its armed wings — the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) and Karen National Defense Organization (KNDO) — expanded military operations against the junta. In 2024–25, Karen forces and allied groups seized or contested Myawaddy, a key trade hub on the Thai border. These advances demonstrated the effectiveness of coordinated resistance, though factionalism and opportunistic actors continued to challenge unity.
8) Urban–Rural Divides and Leadership Challenges
Historical records indicate a divide between some urban Karen leaders who cooperated with the central government and others who resisted. The Tatmadaw repeatedly exploited these differences, offering positions, financial incentives, and local control to fragment the movement. Leadership struggles, including instances where principled leaders were removed through political maneuvering, weakened the national cause.
9) Enduring Causes of the Conflict
Unresolved autonomy demands: The promises of self-determination made at the Panglong Conference (1947) were never fulfilled.
Coercive military strategy: The Four Cuts policy normalized attacks on civilian livelihoods.
Divide-and-rule tactics: Internal splits, from the DKBA in the 1990s to the more recent BGF/KNA developments, weakened unity.
Illusory peace: Ceasefires without political settlement allowed the military to consolidate power.
10) The Path to a Durable Peace
Sustainable resolution requires a bottom-up unity across all Karen communities — Christian, Buddhist, urban, and rural — and full administrative control over Karen lands and resources. Any agreement must include enforceable guarantees of autonomy and respect for the self-determination of all ethnic nationalities in Burma. Broad-based alliances with other ethnic groups seeking similar rights remain critical to overcoming the military’s divide-and-rule strategy.
Conclusion
The Karen struggle, from the declaration of war in 1949 to the ongoing battles of today, is defined by resilience in the face of political betrayal, military aggression, and internal division. The historical bonds among the Karen, Karenni, Kachin, Chin, and other nationalities — forged in both wartime alliance and decades of resistance — point toward a clear strategic lesson: unity is not only a moral imperative but a practical necessity for securing lasting freedom.
References
Tharckabaw, D. (2025, August 8). Interview with Kevin LaChapelle.
Al Jazeera. (2024, April 8). Anti-coup forces claim control of key Myanmar border town.
Al Jazeera. (2024, April 12). Why the fall of Myawaddy is so important.
Al Jazeera. (2024, May 1). A sanctioned strongman and the ‘fall’ of Myawaddy.
Amnesty International. (1996, April). Myanmar: Kayin (Karen) State: The killings continue (AI Index: ASA 16/10/96).
Callahan, M. (2005). Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma.
Crisis Group. (2022, Jan 12). Myanmar’s coup shakes up its ethnic conflicts.
The Diplomat. (2024, Apr). Myanmar military reoccupies Myawaddy base as Karen rebels withdraw.
FRUS (U.S. Dept. of State). (1962). Burma: Ne Win coup reporting (1961–63, vol. 23, docs. 49, 58).
Human Rights Watch. (1995, Mar 1). Abuses linked to the fall of Manerplaw.
Irrawaddy. (2025, May 28). Karen rebels defeat junta reinforcements near Thai border.
Karen Human Rights Group. (1995). Commentary: The fall of Manerplaw.
Oxford Research Encyclopedias. (n.d.). “National Races” in Myanmar.
Smith, M. (1999). Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity (2nd ed.).
Stanford FSI / Marciel, S. (2021). Myanmar coup commentary.
The Guardian. (2012, Jan 12). Burma signs ceasefire with Karen rebels.
U.S. Army / Britannica entries on Ne Win for contextual biography.
Wikipedia community-curated summaries used for date cross-checks: Karen conflict; 1962 Burmese coup d’état.
