So many have read the (2-9 June) Law Khee Lar resolutions. And some of them have even listened to arguments from both sides. One thing positive that came out is that there is as yet no one saying its 15 point proposal for the amendment of the NCA draft is unacceptable.

Properly speaking, it should be called a 12 point proposal, as 2 of them are:

• “(We agree to establish a democratic and Federal Union) in accordance with the outcomes of the political dialogues”
• “To submit (The Union Peace Accord) to the Union legislature for ratification”

which would not be amended. And the third was that the said NCA draft has been approved with proposed amendments by the conference.

The conference also debated at length whether or not to change “in accordance with the Panglong spirit” to the more unambiguous “in accordance with the Panglong Agreement” as suggested by the Shan State Progress Party (SSPP) but the final resolution that was passed was to keep it as it is in the draft text.

The conference likewise had no problem with the government’s sacred Three Causes: Non- disintegration of the Union, Non- disintegration of National Solidarity, and Perpetuation of National Sovereignty.

The rest are more about the wordings rather than principles except for two:

• “To coordinate and undertake administration of humanitarian assistance by NGOs and INGOs for IDPs and conflict victims with the permission of the Union government” that “with the permission of Union government” should be dropped
• “Matters relating to management of land and natural resources” should be added to the work programs which are to be carried out in consultation with each other during the interim period

It would therefore not have taken more than one meeting to straighten out the draft, granted both sides are willing and eager to achieve peace, and no hidden agenda is involved.

The problem however is that if both sides agree to meet there will be new and untried negotiators on each side, who tend to be stronger on “debate” than in “sales”. Which may not bode well for reaching a swift agreement.

Making it worse is the fact that there are, according to a prominent politician, those who are for “throwing away the one bird in hand for the two up in the trees” on the one side and those that want to leave everything to “the two birds up in the trees” on the other.
All these remind one of an old movie where the dying desperado tells the priest who has been trying to convert him his last words: “It is the singer, not the song.” The meaning was clear: To most people, the message is less important than the messenger.


The only hope for peace therefore is that the negotiators on both sides are not “most people” and they will try their best to cooperate with each other to work out the best solution for the country and its 50 million inhabitants, before time runs out, as it always does.