One of the best talks at the Yunnan symposium was given by Ashley South – an update from a key figure in the Myanmar Peace Support Initiative. In common with the rest of us, he had only 15 minutes. In that time, though, he managed to provide a masterly survey. I have his permission to present here my understanding of the main points.

Ashley began by looking at positives. In conflict-affected communities, notably in southeastern parts of Myanmar, many lives have been transformed. Freedom to travel is now greater than even a few years ago, with individuals no longer needing to buy a pass from state soldiers. Freedom to access ethnic language classes in public schools is spreading, led notably by developments in Mon State. Freedom to live a peaceful life is becoming a more common experience across peripheral areas. At the level of high politics, ethnic issues top the agenda for the first time in decades. Since the closing months of last year, government negotiators have been doing something they long declined to do – speak to an alliance of ethnic armed groups (rather than engage in a series of bilateral talks). None of this palpable progress is to be discounted.

At the same time, there are ongoing negatives. Separate resumptions of fighting in Kachin State and northern Shan State at the start of the transitional period, and quite widespread human rights abuse in both areas, are deeply troubling. The failure of peace negotiations to embrace all ethnic armed groups, with the United Wa State Army a notable absentee, is also worrying. The fear that fighting could again erupt in parts that have been getting used to peace is a real concern. These matters all require close attention as the process unfolds.

Additionally, many political challenges still need to be confronted. One is the role of the tatmadaw in the peace process. For the first year or two, military leaders were not fully engaged. Now, as that changes, they are proving to be less flexible than government negotiators. How problematic is that likely to be during the search for a final settlement? Another is the constraint imposed by the electoral cycle, which will start to have an impact no more than a few months from now as politicians move into campaign mode ahead of the 2015 general election. How much progress in securing agreement across government, parliament and the 16 ethnic armed groups can be made in such a context? Yet another is the content of any viable agreement, which will have to contain some “wins” for ethnic armed groups. Can there really be a meeting of minds on difficult matters like federalism and governance of the security sector, in which individuals across the entire political spectrum have close interests? Indeed, how might the multi-stakeholder dialogue required to examine such issues even be structured? Finally, basic questions relating to land ownership and sustainable livelihoods need to be tackled. At a time of rampant land grabs and large-scale commercial investment, can ordinary people register a significant peace dividend? Together, these many challenges generate much uncertainty.