"Political Authority in Burma?s Ethnic Minority States: Devolution, Occupation, and Coexistence", by Mary P. Callahan, Policy Studies 31, East-West Center, Washington, 2007, P 94; "Assessing Burma?s Ceasefire Accords", by Zaw Oo and Win Min, Policy Studies 39, East-West Center, Washington, 2007, P 91.... Two studies draw a landscape of a fragmented country.... "IT has become fashionable to call up the specter of ?balkanization? in Burma. The term, which means the fragmentation of large regions into smaller, violently competitive or antagonistic entities, as occurred in the Balkan wars of the late 19th century and in the breakup of Yugoslavia less than 20 years ago, also invokes images of ethnic cleansing and chaos. Anyone with a grasp of history and geography knows that Burma has actually been fragmented for decades. A study of the map, a tally of the ethnic minorities of Burma and neighboring countries, and an understanding of the effects of 60 years of colonialism and of the following six decades of war—all confirm this conclusion. For those not much interested in human development and human rights, things in Burma are in some ways better now than they ever were. As these two academic monographs by notable Burma experts contend, the country now is arguably at its most stable, peaceful, geographically united and developed juncture since 1948. That doesn?t mean things are good, however.... Callahan argues that the process has produced three broad forms of government in border areas. The first of these, devolution, admits that non-state entities (such as warlords and resistance forces) control the area. The second, occupation, entails government forces establishing uncontested control over a patch of territory. The third, coexistence, involves the cooperation of state and non-state authorities (often uneasily) to control an area. This latter arrangement is hardly ideal, but it supports the contention of Zaw Oo and Win Min that a peace of sorts has been reached.