Non

Non-Burman Ethnic Nationalities: A third force in Burma arena?

By: Sai Wansai ( General Secretary - Shan Democratic Union)

When it comes to Burma, most tend to think that there are only two stakeholders competing within the political arena of Burma, namely, the military junta or State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). The fact that there is a third force and that the Union of Burma is in no way a homogenous country and made up of several countries is virtually overlooked.

Historical back ground

The country we all know as Burma or Myanmar, as termed by the Burmese military regime, is a country made up of at least three countries, namely: Burma Proper, Karenni State and Shan States. The Shan and the Karenni joined Burma in their struggle for self-determination from the British and jointly attained independence on January 4, 1948. During this period, the Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen and Mon were not yet assigned to the administrative status of states, even though they have lived at their respective states from time immemorial.

However, in 1962 the Burmese military sized state power in a coup and declared the Union Constitution abolished. In so doing, the Burmese terminated the only existing legal bond between them and the other ethnic nationalities. The declaration of the suspension of the Constitution was in effect a self-denunciation that Burma had overnight become an aggressor-nation instead of partner. Thus, in a legal-constitutional sense, the Union of Burma ceased to exist. 

The Burmese military regime has been attempting to hold the defunct Union together by sheer military force, whilst the real and only solution is political. The Shan and the Karenni on their part have been waging a war of resistance to free themselves from the Burmese domination. This is also true for all the other non-Burman ethnic groups who are being subjected to the Burmese military's Burmanization and forced assimilation policies. The significant difference is that the Shan and Karenni conflict with the Burmese military could be argued as "international", due to the fact that the Shan and Karenni joined the Union of Burma on an equal political footing, whereby both nations were constitutionally granted or enjoyed the right to secede after a trial period of ten years following the attainment of joint-independence from the British.

Furthermore, the non-Burman ethnic nationalities occupy 57% of the land mass and have a population of 40% by conservative estimation. As such, it is only logical that any political settlement excluding them would never work, much less finding a lasting solution.

Federalism as a conflict resolution 

But this does not mean that the non-Burmans are opting to break away from the country and create a Yugoslavia-like situation. 

While the political aspiration of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities swing back and forth between total independence and federalism during the past decades, most have now come to terms that they are ready to settle for a genuine federal structure, if it would meet their needs and aspirations. This consideration or acceptance comes mainly through the prevailing international mood against dismemberment of the existing state on one hand and not wanting to fight an uphill battle for international support and recognition for secession or total independence, on the other. It should also be noted that almost all ethnic resistance movements have started out on a total independence platform, notably the Shan, Karenni, Karen, Arakan and Kachin. 

The Copenhagen Declaration, signed by all non-Burman ethnic nationalities' representatives including the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, on 22nd September 2002, reaffirmed the desire to establish the Genuine Federal Union and that there are only eight constituent states, namely: Arakan, Burman, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Shan. The military junta's exaggeration of 135 races and possible disintegration of the country without its heavy-handed rule is nothing more than a false excuse to cling on to power.

Awareness-building of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities' political position

Ethnic Nationalities Solidarity and Cooperation Committee (ENSCC), which was formed in August 2001 and functions as a task force and clearing house for non-Burman organizations, is instrumental in projecting the needs, value and aspiration of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities. While the ENSCC is not a political front vested with decision-making power to represent the whole non-Burman ethnic spectrum, it does act as a think tank and facilitator. The task of the ENSCC is to ensure that a 'Tripartite Dialogue' takes place by coordinating the efforts of the ethnic nationalists and their organizations.

ENSCC has conducted tours to Oslo, Paris, Copenhagen and Brussels with non-Burman ethnic leaders during the last two years to raise awareness and gain experience. 

During the past two years, SDU and KNU representatives have also covered Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Greece, United Kingdom and Italy in their deliberation to build awareness of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities' political position and exchange views with the concerned foreign office officials.

Tripartite Dialogue

A "Tripartite Dialogue" is usually understood to mean a dialogue amongst three parties: the military government (SPDC), the democracy forces (NLD) and the ethnic nationalities. The notion of 'Tripartite Dialogue', therefore, highlights the indispensable participation of the ethnic nationalities in political transition and national reconciliation processes. 

The term "Tripartite Dialogue" was first used in the 1994 United Nations General Assembly resolution because most external actors thought the problem of Burma can be resolved by solving two issues- the issues of democracy versus military rule. 'Tripartite' was used to indicate that a third party or issues must also be resolved.

The ultimate "Tripartite Dialogue" will involve an inclusive nation-wide convention to draft a new constitution. The drafting of the new constitution will resolve all three issues - the role of the military in Burmese politics, democracy, and the constitutional arrangement between the constituent states of Burma. 

However, it is important for future of the nation that the process leading to the constitution drafting process be inclusive - whether it is 'confidence building', negotiating compromises, or forming a transitional authority. In other words, the concept of a 'Tripartite Dialogue' or 3 parties discussing 3 issues need to be incorporated into the dialogue process as early as possible.

All non-Burman factions, including the political parties, cease-fire and non-cease-fire ethnic armies, endorse the "Tripartite Dialogue".

The Constitutional Crisis

After the end of the Second World War, the leaders of the various ethnic nationalities met in 1946 in Panglong to deliberate the possibility of a future together after the proposed withdrawal of British protection. General Aung San, the Burman leader of the independence struggle in Ministerial Burma participated in the 2nd Panglong Conference in February 1947. He proposed that the separate ethnic homelands in the Frontier Areas be joined to Ministerial Burma as equal partners in a 'Union of Burma' to hasten the process of achieving independence from Britain. 

The Panglong Agreement, which recognized the equality, voluntary participation, and self-determination, of the constituent states, formed the basis for the Republic of the Union of Burma.

But after General Aung San was assassinated in July 1947, the Union Constitution was rushed through to completion without reflecting the spirit of Panglong. The ethnic homelands were recognized as constituent states but all power was concentrated in the central government. In spite of these set backs, the ethnic nationalities leaders continued to support the government of U Nu who had succeeded Aung San, even when the Communist Party of Burma started their armed revolution; when the war veterans of the People's Volunteer Organization went underground; and when Burman units of the Burma Army mutinied. In fact, army units made up of ethnic nationalities helped restore order and ensured the survival of the government of U Nu. 

In 1958, the right of the Shan and Karenni people to disassociate from the Union after 10 years, guaranteed in the 1947 Union Constitution, was denied them. As a precaution, U Nu invited the Commander-in-Chief, General Ne Win, to form a 'Caretaker' government to restore law and order for a period of 2 years as young people took to the jungles to claim their rights.

In 1960, the ethnic nationalities leaders tried to return to the spirit of Panglong by proposing to amend the 1947 Constitution as a means of preventing the nation from disintegrating.

But General Ne Win launched a coup d'etat in 1962 'to save the nation from disintegration' and suspended the 1947 Constitution. From the ethnic nationalities' point of view, this act abolished the legal instrument that bound their homelands to the Union. As such, they consider themselves to be independent entities held by force in subjugation by an invading army.

In 1974, General Ne Win's Burmese Socialist Programme Party adopted a new constitution but this had no status in law as far as the ethnic nationalities were concerned. In any case, the 1974 Constitution was suspended by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) in 1988.

In 1993, SLORC and now the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) convened a new National Convention to draft a constitution that will guarantee a leading political role for the military in a future Burma. After 10 years, the process is still stalled. 

The ENSCC, therefore, considers that it is of the utmost importance for the constitutional crisis in Burma to be resolved if the nation is to be rebuilt.

SDU and KNU European Union Lobby

Guided by the tripartite dialogue initiative and the need to address the constitutional crisis, which is the main cause of the ongoing conflict, Sai Wansai, General Secretary of Shan Democratic Union and Saw Sarky, Central Committee member of Karen National Union have been lobbying the EU governments for the past two years, on behalf of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities. The main thrust of their lobby has been "to seek recognition and support for non-Burman ethnic nationalities' political position leading to reconciliation and democratization through "tripartite dialogue" process". But they are careful to point out that while they fully have the endorsement of their respective peoples, the Shan and Karen, they are merely representing the needs, value and aspirations of the other non-Burman ethnic groups, which they have in common.

Sai Wansai and Saw Sarky had, during the past two years, already covered Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Greece, United Kingdom and Italy" in their deliberation to build awareness of the non-Burman political position." 

According to them, after two years of awareness building and opinion-making within the EU countries, the issue of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities, which has always been treated as a back burner, has now been accepted as one of the main stakeholders in Burma arena. 

Their recent five-day lobby trip to London and Rome, 1-5 July, by two non-Burman representatives, Shan and Karen, had been summed up as a successful one.

In London they were said to have fruitful discussion with Head of South East Asia Department, Michael Reilly; Philip Lord of Public Policy and Projects (Burma); and Sara Hunt, the Burma desk officer.

The two men delegation team, who visited the United Kingdom, 1-3 July, and Italy, 4-5 July, reported the freedom of the National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi would be the first priority of both countries as well as the European Union. 

Mrs. Margherita Boniver, Italian deputy Foreign Minister told them: "It goes without saying we will do everything in our capacity to free Aung San Suu Kyi and push for democratization and reconciliation within the mold of EU. And all pressures will be applied to reach this end." 

She also informed them of Italy's decision not to send in the Troika team if Aung San Suu Kyi was not released. "She also said she would be pushing for UN Security Council consideration of Burma issue with the EU backing," reports Wansai. "She would talk to Razali (Ismail, UN special envoy to Burma) about this." 

Italy has just assumed presidency of the European Union from the outgoing president, Greece. 

The two, during their meetings, had also urged international community to ponder the following measures, "if all other options have been exhausted": 

• Severance of diplomatic relations with the junta

• Declaration of the junta as an illegitimate regime with no mandate to govern 

•  Expulsion of the junta's UN mission 

• Replacement of the junta's UN representatives with those from the democratic and ethnic opposition 

• Large-scale support for the democratic and ethnic opposition 

The New Panglong Initiative a way out or possible road map?

Given such circumstances, the peoples of Burma and the well-meaning democratic countries are faced with a task on how to move forward from this stalemate or deadlock situation.

Ethnic Nationalities Solidarity and Cooperation Committee (ENSCC), which functions as a task force and clearing house for non-Burman organizations, has outlined its "New Panglong Initiative" in support of the confidence-building talks between the SPDC and NLD. Although it might now seems to be out of place, due to the hardening, confrontational and tense political atmosphere prevailing in Burma now, it is worthwhile to ponder on its concept, vision and measures which could help facilitate the transition to democracy and political stability in future Burma.

Abstract: The New Panglong Initiative

Basic Concept

• The ethnic nationalities helped to create the Republic of the Union of Burma in 1948. This was achieved through the Panglong Agreement of 1947.

• The ENSCC believes that the non-Burman ethnic nationalities have a responsibility to help resolve the crisis in Burma and rebuild the nation.

• The ENSCC firmly believes that the crisis is rooted in a political problem, specifically a constitutional one- the non-adherence to the spirit of Panglong.

• The ENSCC believes that Burma can be rebuilt if the spirit of Panglong is respected.

• The Panglong Agreement was based on - equality, self-determination and democracy.

Vision for the Future

1. Differences can be resolved through political dialogue, negotiations and compromise.

2. The ultimate aim of the non-Burmans is to eventually bring about a new constitutional arrangement between the 8 states of the Union of Burma.

3. The new nation must be based on democratic principles and federal system.

4. To rebuild the nation, a transition period from SPDC rule may be necessary.

5. The ENSCC recognizes that the National League for Democracy (NLD) under the leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has the mandate to form a government.

6. The ENSCC further recognizes the NLD has the right to invite non-Burman political parties (UNLD) to join in forming a transitional government/authority.

7. The ENSCC additionally accepts that the NLD can invite both the UNLD and SPDC to join it in forming a transitional authority.

8. However, in order to ensure a smooth transition to democracy, an inclusive broad-based government of national reconciliation is recommended by the ENSCC.

9. The priority task of the Transition Authority should be to convene a new Panglong Conference of representatives of the constituent states to draft a new constitution.

Measures to Facilitate the Transition & to ensure Political Stability

• Alleviate the suffering of those most deprived and oppressed by calling for and delivering international humanitarian assistance.

• Declare nation-wide cease-fire to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.

• Declare a general amnesty for all (opposition and military) to facilitate the political consultation and reconciliation process prior to drafting a new constitution.

• Refrain from subdividing or changing the boundaries or names of the current states.

• Agree that all citizens have the same rights.

• Further agree that illegal immigrants also have basic human rights.

• Further agree that cultural and religious rights will be respected.

• Agree that all states should consider decentralizing their administrative structures in the future to enable multi-ethnic societies to function in harmony.

• Agree that proportional representation should be considered for all electoral processes including state and local elections, in order to enable smaller groupings to participate fully in any future political processes.

Concluding note

All possible options from the non-Burman ethnic nationalities' point of view on how we should bring about the reconciliation and democratization processes are laid bare. It is now the task of all the contending parties within Burma political spectrum and well-meaning international players to wholeheartedly push for restarting the stalling process, so that peace, harmony and social justice would once again prevail, in this part of the world.