Thein Sein’s address, delivered using progressive language and touching upon burning issues which have long been ignored by the government, has raised many hopes. However, we should be cautious not to applaud the government too early: the three-step plan could potentially make the solution of ethnic conflicts easier, but peace is still nowhere to be seen for the Internally Displaced Persons. The ceasefires may be the necessary place to start, but, especially in the light of the Burmese government’s long and shameful tradition of violating truces with ethnic groups, they can only result in sustainable solutions if they involve genuine and inclusive political dialogue. Such talks have been initiated in Karen state, where Thein Sein has met with the leader of the currently banned Karen National Union party – an unprecedented and symbolically very important event, but whose real impact is yet to be seen. Despite the ceasefires and apparent move towards sustainable peaceful solutions, the situation in many states, including Karen and Kachin state, has been highly unstable, as they have been under attack by the Burmese army, regardless of Thein Sein’s declarations and orders.

Without tangible political change, the forced relocation will continue, depriving thousands of Burmese citizens of their basic rights. The ceasefires and peace talks in some of the regions may be a sign of the government’s willingness to end the ethnic conflict. While this should be recognised, the international community needs to put pressure on the Burmese authorities to ensure that Thein Sein’s declarations become reality. With hundreds of thousands of people still living in forced relocation camps, the international enthusiasm for the reforms in Burma appears to be premature. The country might be on the right track to a real change, but it still has a long way to go.

The Oxford Burma Alliance has launched a Displaced But Not Forgotten 365 campaign to raise awareness about the issue. Click here for more information about the campaign and how to get involved.

Ruled by a brutal and repressive military regime for over 40 years, the opening of political space in Burma was unthinkable only a few short years ago. Inklings of change began in 2010 when the first elections in 20 years were held, ushering in a new era of civilian government. Although widely condemned by the international community as fraudulent, the newly ‘elected’ government soon began sweeping reforms.

Most encouraging was the release of Aung San Suu Kyi – the country’s most revered and respected pro-democracy leader – from house arrest shortly after the election. Suu Kyi, commonly known as The Lady, had spent the majority of the previous 20 years under detention following the refusal of the military government to cede power after her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won a landslide victory in the 1990 elections. Further signs of change, like the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the release of hundreds of political prisoners, soon followed Suu Kyi’s 2010 release. However, it should be noted that the NHRC is composed of people who have made a career out of defending the regime’s human rights record, which might make the commission lack credibility. Furthermore, according to some sources up to 1,000 political prisoners are still behind bars.

Another important test for the government’s commitment to reforms occurred early this April. Suu Kyi and the previously outlawed NLD were permitted to run in parliamentary by-elections, capturing 43 out of the 45 contested seats, about 6.4% of Parliament. For the first time Burmese officials allowed international observers to monitor voting in certain areas, and despite reported electoral irregularities, the election was deemed relatively free and fair. It should be noted, however, that the military-backed government was well aware that Suu Kyi’s election was a crucial step towards getting sanctions lifted.

Yet despite the unprecedented political developments, there is much speculation regarding the government’s motives. Undoubtedly, much of the power still resides with the notoriously secretive military, which, by right of the constitution, retains 25% of the seats in Parliament. Furthermore, most civilian members of parliament are ex-military officers. Therefore, some argue that Suu Kyi’s electoral victory is cosmetic, a small but necessary concession to allow members of the former regime to stay in power.

There are still major roadblocks ahead for Burma. It is one of the poorest countries in Southeast Asia, with two-thirds of the population living in poverty. The government bureaucracy is rife with corruption, and human rights abuses still occur on a tragic scale. Notably, while enacting political and economic reform, the government has done little to ease the suffering of the ethnic minorities situated in Burma’s border regions. The Burmese military has been engaged in violent conflict with the numerous groups in the highlands for over 50 years, earning the conflict the title of world’s longest ongoing civil war. President Thein Sein’s recent order to stop the fighting in Kachin State has not been adhered to by the army, leaving the question of whether he really is in charge.

While the progress in Burma has been encouraging, there is still a long way to go. Optimism with a healthy dose of caution is the most prudent approach.