Recently, there has been a lot of discussions touching on minority-majority, and national identity issues. The following is a reproduction from an interview on 4 June 2005. — Editor

Recently, an article advocating the forming of a federal union without the Burman state or Burma Proper have been publicized and it creates some curiosity, if not alarmed, on this trend of advocacy.

Sai Wansai

Maung Chan of Boxun News (S.H.A.N. & Burma's News Published by Burma's Chinese ) called on Sai Wansai, General Secretary of the Shan Democratic Union SDU ,who is familiar with Burmans' and non-Burmans’ political scenario, to clarify the motive behind such an outburst.

MgChan - What is your opinion on Prof. Kanbawza Win's article of forming a federal union without the Burmans?

SaiWanSai - Prof. Kanbawza Win, as an individual is entitled to express his own opinion and it is not necessarily the political stand of the non-Burman ethnic nationality groups. But my interpretation is that he might like to point out that many of the Burman opposition elements still cannot clean themselves of racial supremacy, chauvinism or big brother mentalityvis-à-vis the other non-Burman groups. This, in turn, leads to the thinking of "if the Burmans are so consumed by their own political agendas of placing themselves above the norms of "equality, restoration of democracy and the rights of self-determination, the non-Burman ethnic nationality groups might as well form a union without the Burmans". The outburst is more on the side of venting anger on the indifferent Burman majority stakeholders, both within the military junta and opposition camps, than actually wanting to exclude the Burmans.

MgChan - How many kind of conflict resolution outcomes could you envisage, a part from forming a federal union without the Burmans?

SaiWanSai - Before we talk about conflict resolution, we should first look into the cause of conflict and type of conflict.

Cause of conflict

To understand the cause of conflict we could generally bundled the issues together into four major headings, namely: "Conceptual Differences , Constitutional Crisis, National Identity and Majority-Minority Configuration".

1. Conceptual Differences

The successive military dominated regimes, including the ruling SPDC, see Burma as an existing unified nation since the reign of Anawratha thousandsof years ago. As such, all other non-Burmans – Shan, Kachin, Chin , Arakanese, Mon, Karen and Karenni - are seen as minorities, which must be controlled and suppressed, lest they break up the country.

On the other hand, the non-Burmans maintain that the Union of Burma is a newly developed territorial entity, founded by a treaty, the Panglong Agreement, where independent territories merged together on equal basis.

Given such conceptual differences, the Burmese military goes about with its implementation of protecting “national sovereignty” and “national unity”at all cost. This, in turn, gives way to open conflict resulting in more suppression and gross human rights violations. The intolerance of the military and its inspiration to “racial supremacy”, political domination and control has no limit and could be seen by its refusal to hand over power to the winners of 1990 nation-wide election, the NLD, SNLD and other ethnic parties. The genuine federalism platform, which the NLD and ethnic nationalities embrace, is a threat to its racist mind-set and obsession of domination and control.

2. Constitutional Crisis

The woes of Burma today are deeply rooted in the inadequate constitutional drafting of 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 or the government of the Burma Mother state.

Almost all the non-Burmans and Burman democratic opposition groups are in agreement that the ethnic conflict and reform of social, political and economics cannot be separated from one another. And the only solution and answer is to amend the 1947 Constitution according to Panglong Agreement,where equality, voluntary participation and self-determination, of the constituent states, formed the basis for the Republic of the Union of Burma.

3. National Identity

The views of successive Burmese governments, including the present regime , SPDC, concerning national identity has never been clear. They have been at a loss even as to what sort of name they should adopt; that is the reason why they are still using "Bamar“ and "Myanmar" interchangeably for what they would like to be termed a common collective identity, in other words, national identity. The reality is that when one mentions "Myanmar", "Bamar","Burmese" or "Burman", such words are usually identified with the lowland majority "Bamar” and have never been accepted or understood by the non-Bamar ethnic nationals as a common collective identity to which they also belong.

Meanwhile, just a few years back, the present Burmese military regime changed the name of Burma to Myanmar. Its aim is to create a national identity for every ethnic group residing within the boundary of the so-called Union of Myanmar. But since the name Myanmar has always been identified with the lowland "Bamar", the SPDC effort the SPDC’s effort intrying to establish a common national identity among the non-Bamar ethnic nationals is only doomed to fail. On top of that, this national identity was not chosen with the consent of the non-Bamar ethnic groups, but coercively thrust down their throats by the hated Burmese military dictatorship.

It has never been the case to hear anyone mentioning that he or she is a Bamar Myanmar, Shan Myanmar, Kachin Myanmar, Karen Myanmar and so on. In the United States, by contrast, it is normal that one considers or accepts oneself as an American; such as, the use of Chinese American, Japanese American, Afro-American and so on are common and widespread.

Another crucial point that most tend to overlook is that the maintenance of the former European colonial boundaries as irreversible and sacrosanct national state boundaries. This, in reality, only creates unending ethnic conflicts the world over affecting international stability. Burma is such a case, infested with ethnic and social conflicts.

The point to note here is that the successive Burmese governments' nation-building process has totally shattered, failing even to take root after all these years, not to mention the forging of common national identity. It would be more pragmatic to accept the existing diversified “national identities” of all ethnic nationalities as a fact and work for a new common identity in the future federal union with the consent and participation of all ethnic groups, Burman included.

4. Majority-Minority Configuration

The misconception of majority-minority configuration has been so entrenched; at least in medias and academic studies, it needs some clarification.

The Burman are majority in Burma Proper and in numerical sense, but become a minority in the Shan States, Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni, Karen, and the Mon states, where respective ethnic groups are in majority within their own territories.

Besides, Burma was formed in 1947 by virtue of the Panglong Agreement, one year prior to independence. This agreement was signed between the interim government of Ministerial Burma, headed by Aung San, and leaders of the Federated Shan States, the Chin Hill Tract, and the Kachin Hill Tract. It could be said that this agreement is the genesis of the post-colonial, current Burma.

Thus, the indigenous groups of Burma -- Shan, Arakanese, Chin, Kachin,Karenni, Karen, Mon and including the Burman -- are not minorities or majorities but equal partners in a union of territories, the Union of Burma.

Type of conflict

Within Burma political arena there are roughly only two types of conflict. One is the ethnic conflict, which has a vertical nature in contrast to horizontal one, and the other, the ideological conflict played out between entrenched military dictatorship and the democratic aspiration of the people, which has a horizontal effect, covering the whole political spectrum within Burma.

The ethnic conflict is seen as vertical for the oppression of the non-Burman nationality groups comes only from the dominant, ruling Burmese military clique and not horizontally spread out racial-instigated hatred like one people killing another, such as in Sudan or Rwanda.

In contrast, the conflict between military dictatorship and democratic aspiration of the people is horizontal, for the desire of democratisation or a change to civilian rule is widespread and among the peoples of Burma.

Conflict resolution outcomes

Generally speaking, the outcomes of implementing the Right to Self-determination fall roughly into two categories. It could be understood in a strong or a weak sense. While the strong sense insists that a nation be given statehood, the weak sense only requires that a nation be given some form of self-government. Weak national self-determination is thus compatible with a multinational state in which nations are given some political autonomy. It is clear that the weak notion of self-determination can encompass differing degrees of self-determination, including confederations, federations, consociational democracies, and unitary states with subnational autonomy – that is, regional parliaments, local governments and so on.

From strictly theoretical point of view, the following options or outcomes would be open to achieve rights of self-determination for the non-Burman ethnic nationalities.

· Total independence or secession·

· Formation of a federal union as Burma is known now·

· Confederation of all states as Burma is known now·

· Formation of a federal union without Burman state·

· Confederation of all states without Burman state·

· Fusion of individual ethnic nationality territory with neighbouring countries

MgChan - Can you explain more on how these outcomes could be related to the realpolitik of the day?

SaiWanSai - · Total independence or secession·

For example, the Shan and Karenni States have always been more inclined to opt for total independence, due to their historical rights and well-defined territorial boundaries. According to the 1947 Union of Burma Constitution, both states have the right to secede after ten years from the union, if they are not satisfied or choose to separate from the union for any reason.

The abolition of the Panglong Accord and the Union Constitution of 1947 by the military regime nullified the contractual obligation between the Burman and non-Burman states and as such, all states are from constitutional and theoretical point of views independent and have nothing to do with each other. The so-called Union of Burma, which is known now, is defunct and only being kept together by forceful occupation of the Burma army and not on a voluntary basis that formed the union in 1947.

· Formation of a federal union as Burma is known now·

This option is the most accepted political solution, which many contending stake holders and even the UN and international community think is viable. The only party not in agreement is the Burmese junta, that wants to dominate the whole political spectrum with a unitary system and continues projection of its “racial supremacy” policy on the other non-Burman ethnic nationalities.

· Confederation of all states as Burma is known now·

Confederation as an association of sovereign states, usually created by treaty and later adopting a common constitution, is appealing to most of the non-Burman states. The Panglong Agreement, in fact, is a treaty, which is the fore-runner of the 1947 Union of Burma constitution. Again, this type of association is not in the interest of the Burmese junta and even most of the Burman opposition groups are reluctant to endorse such resolution for fear of losing political clout or dominant position on the non-Burman states.

· Formation of a federal union without Burman state·

In theory, it is possible to form such a union for Burma Proper or Burman state is surrounded by non-Burman states in a “horseshoe-like” formation. There are ocean outlets from Arakan state, which is on the southwestern part and from Karen and Mon states in the most southern part of Burma.

In practice, the Burma Proper is a mixture of Karen, Burman and other ethnic population and where the majority of the Karen population also resides. So it could be said that the Karen are not ready to abandon their population by forming a union without Burma Proper. Besides, homogeneity or neatly defined ethnic territories corresponding to the respective ethnic group is not the case.

In other words, most of the ethnic territories and Burma Proper itself are multi-ethnic in nature.

· Confederation of all states without Burman state·

The same argument as forming a federal union without Burman state could be applied here too.

· Fusion of individual ethnic nationality territory with neighbouring countries·

For example, if you look at the Chin state, it could opt for the fusion with Mizoram state of India, where the Mizo, who are ethnically related to the Chin, have more autonomy and could run their own affairs quite independently. Likewise, the Naga from the Burma side could also think of joining their brethren in India.

Again, if you think about the Kachin, they could unite with the same population from China across the border and choose to be part of China.

The Shan could choose to be with China, Laos or Thailand to be together with their own kin across the borders. The Shan in China, even though they are under communist rule, have more cultural rights and rights running their own affairs. Laos and Thailand are ethnically related to the Shan and opting for a fusion with either country could be better than living under the oppressed Burmese military regime.

The Karenni, Karen and Mon could also choose to merge with Thailand for they also have many of their own kinds across the border, where the people are not oppressed and possessed some degree of individual rights and democracy.

The above redrawing of the geo-political map would only come into consideration, if Burma under the military regime would become a “failed state” and sink deeper into chaos and poverty, at the expense of the region’s stability peaceful co-existence.

However, these are mostly pure theoretical arguments and should not be confused with logical or practical solution envisaged by all the peoples of Burma and international stakeholders.

MgChan - Which type of outcome would be pragmatic, in your point of view?

SaiWanSai - While all the non-Burman resistance groups have started out with achieving total independence or secession as a means to achieve rights of self-determination, decades long fruitless struggle and the international configuration and political reality have changed most of their rigid stance, leading them to opt for struggling together, with the goal of establishing a genuine federal structure. The National Democratic Front (NDF), Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB), National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB),Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC) are all political fronts, which are designed to restore democracy, equality and rights of self-determination for all peoples of Burma.

Given that the international stakeholders are reluctant to endorse or even vocally against the disintegration of existing states, the non-Burman ethnic nationalities would have to fight an uphill battle for recognition of a newborn state or secession. Another point is that after more than five decades of armed struggle, there is no indication that the entrenched military junta could be overthrown by force. While the armed struggle of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities is defensive in nature and part and parcel of the overall resistance movement, the removal of the military junta would be only possible if a multi-pronged approach is coupled with the motto of “common goal diverse actions”. In other words, the non-Burman ethnic nationalities and the Burman democratic elements would need to work together and resolve the conflict politically.

MgChan - Do you have any hope that the military junta would yield to the people’s aspiration of restoring democracy anytime soon?

SaiWanSai - The non-Burman ethnic nationalities and Burman democratic opposition groups have come a long way and are, more or less, now united in their aims to achieve democracy, equality and rights of self-determination within the mould of a federal structure. The UN, international stakeholders and more importantly, the peoples of Burma have supported this. The junta can’t deny the wish of the people forever and the junta’s beginning of the end is unfolding at a tremendous pace, starting with the removal of General Khin Nyunt and the recent bomb blast in Rangoon, which indicates that the power struggle is on with a vengeance. Who knows, the Philippines or Indonesian scenario of one faction of the military forming alliance with the people won’t be played out in Burma also.