SECOND 21st CENTURY PANGLONG: Hurdles, woes and imagination
Even though we have now and then conducted several interviews together
in the past on various political issues surrounding Burma, I was very much
delighted when U Kyaw Zan Tha from the
Voice of America (VOA) called me to discuss on the situation of the
upcoming 21st Century Panglong Conference (21CPC), as preferred to
be addressed by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi head of the de facto National League for
Democracy (NLD) government, but of which the Military or Tatmadaw would like to
retain its as Union Peace Conference (UPC), scheduled to take off on February
28.
My main argument is that without necessary basic factors being
fulfilled, holding the second “Union Peace Conference - 21st Century
Panglong” (UPC-21CP) a compromised term worked out between the NLD and the
Military bloc - comprising of the Tatmadaw and Union Solidarity Development
Party (USDP) - under the NLD regime, won't be able to achieve its objective of
national reconciliation and political settlement as anticipated.
The first Union Peace Conference (UPC) from January 12 to 16 of 2016 was
conducted during the ex-President Thein Sein; the Union Peace Conference - 21st
Century Panglong (UPC-21CP) from August 31 to September 3, under the NLD headed
government; and the forthcoming second UPC-21CP is geared to take off on
February 28.
The issues or problem areas we touched upon were the timing of
conducting the forthcoming conference; the assessment of first conference held
under NLD regime; the controversial situation created by the Union Peace and
Dialogue Joint Committee's (UPDJC) decision on not to hold national-level
political dialogue in Arakan and Chin States (latest BBC news of February 14
said Chin State would be allowed to conduct the meeting); Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi's urging on making binding major decisions during the upcoming conference;
all-inclusiveness debacles; Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's often promoted notion of “ask
not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”;
reformation of the Tatmadaw into a federal army; creation of a Bamar State; new
national states, nationalities states, national areas; and problematic of
trust-building between adversaries or negotiation partners.
As the interview, or better the discussion, which lasted some thirteen
minutes was in Burmese, I thought I should also made it known in English for
international consumption, as the issues discussed here are crucial for a wider
debate or brainstorming, which might possibly pave the way for a better
conceptual thinking for all actors, stakeholders and opinion-makers to be able
to conduct this delicate peace process in a fair and justified manner, if
possible without much bias, in Burma or Myanmar.
True, there would be disagreement on the way I have approached various
woes and issues surrounding the country. But my main aim is to be able to open
the debate by pinpointing crucial issues in an objective manner and in order to
do this, wider discussion possibilities among stakeholders and the general
public might be the way to go. And as such, I sincerely hope that some key
words mentioned here in the discussion or interview might serve the purpose.
Thus, the translated version of the VOA aired
discussion between U Kyaw Zan Tha and Sai Wansai, titled, “The Prospect
of 21st Century Second Panglong Convention”, on February 9,
is presented here as follows:
This week Burma's current affairs discussion would focus on how much the
21st Century Panglong second conference, that is to be held at the
end of February, would be able to resolve the ethnic problems. The situation
was discussed and analyzed by Sai Wansai, political commentator on Burma's
ethnic affairs and U Kyaw Zan Tha. Sai Wansai started with the criticism for
calling the convention without fulfilling the basic needed factors.
Sai Wansai: I am beginning to
suspect if Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is blindly going ahead without looking back and
forth (of the existing situation).
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
You believe that the timing is not ripe to conduct the meeting. Sai Wansai,
what has been achieved during last convention (UPC-21CP) and how much positive
helpful outcomes to resolve ethnic problematic were being achieved? How would
you assess the first conference (under the NLD government)?
Sai Wansai: The first meeting
invited by convener were termed as meeting participants and not
representatives, as there were problems in defining as such. All Ethnic Armed
Organizations (EAOs) were invited and nearly all came. The plus point is that
all could made known their complete feelings, desires and aspirations. Because
of this, we were in the situation to know who wanted what in detailed manner.
Therefore, I see it as a plus point. But it didn't seem like having the nature
of consensus and just became a forum reading position papers, which was the
weak point. No agreement was achieved, no discussion took place and no future
guidelines were able to be mapped out.
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
But at that time, it was said that national-level political discussion would be
made, followed by third conference (second 21st Century Panglong
under the NLD government). Right?
Sai Wansai: Correct.
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
As it is, national-level political discussion, according to the situation, just
in three places. Now the inability to hold such meetings have even prompted the
Chin National Front (CNF) to say something like that it is reconsidering to
attend the meeting. So how important is that meeting for not being able to hold
such national-level political discussions?
Sai Wansai: I believe that it is one
of the very important chapter. Because those who are in politics or political
elite are just speculating and saying on that the people might either want this
or that, but (the best would be) national-level political dialogue must be made
known to the public and as well also conducting it. I see it is as a very
appropriate and good undertaking. By not conducting it in front of the masses,
like U Kyaw Zan Tha said it was able to pull through only in three places.
Arakan State was not able to do it. Chin State was not able to do it. I think,
calling (holding) second Panglong under such circumstances wouldn't be able to
gather facts or enough inputs from the people and would be like jumping a step,
which Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and political leaders have hoped for. That is why
holding second Panglong stubbornly and coercively won't be conducive (to the
peace process).
U Kyaw Zan Tha: Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi likes to make a move to be able to make exact, decisive
decisions in the second conference. Would it be possible?
Sai Wansai: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's
intention is good. But if asked whether this is possible, I would say the
chances are quite slim. Why the chances are slim is because all-inclusiveness
still cannot be realized. Another thing is the ongoing wars cannot be stopped.
Other than that, the Tatmadaw's planned implementation with the aim and
intention to swing the non-NCA-signatory organizations either to surrender or
give in to its demand. So because of the inability to carry out
all-inclusiveness and to conduct national-level political discussion all over
the country, I think we don't have enough facts or inputs. And if Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi would draw decisive conclusion from such given condition, I don't think
it couldn't be correct and comprehensive decision-making.
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
When you said that there is no all-inclusiveness, one leader from UPDJC said
that non-NCA-signatory ethnic groups would be invited.
Sai Wansai: Yes, I have heard about
it. But at the same time, Hkun Okker from UPDJC who is also the PNLO leader
said that they won't be invited. Even if they are really invited, the UNFC has
clearly said that it won't attend if given just observer status. So it seems
like that the government side is just inviting to look good and to strike a
posture that nobody has been left behind.
U Kyaw Zan Tha: I
think, another thing, which Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said is worth pondering.
People who would be attending the conference should not only ask but mainly
should give priority to ask themselves of what they could give. Couldn't we say
that it is correct?
Sai Wansai: I would say this
thinking and advocacy are justified. Although it is correct, one point of
consideration also comes to mind. About four, five, six months ago, a Karenni
leader Khu Oo Reh said that we didn't have anything to give. Our land and
rivers have dried and our people have fled. We didn't have anything more to
give. At this moment, regarding conflict which is going on between powerful
(Tatmadaw) and weaker (less powerful) ethnic resistance forces, I think the
Tatmadaw is in a position that could give more, by having the desire to end the
war. If this is done, all other related problems could become a lot easier to
resolve. Therefore, among all the forces, the most that could give is the
Tatmadaw; the second is the government; and the ethnic are the forces that
could just give very little.
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
But regarding the demands, for example could the ethnic desire for federal army
(formation) be implemented? Another point is whether the the demand for seven
states configuration like after the early stage of independence period be
immediately realizable? Couldn't we
consider that the demands would be like asking too much than needed?
Sai Wansai: We could consider. You said two points. One is the
federal army and the other ethnic-based union. The federal army formation is a
justified demand and it is not the thing that is impossible to achieve. If one
looks at other countries, the Security Sector Reform (SSR) which is the
reformation of the military forces could take decades. So basically, we need to
accept the change of the lop-sided nature of the Tatmadaw, which is dominated
by the ethnic Bamar. This is one part. The demand is justified but it would
take time. At the same time, the Military would need to make flexible
adjustment of give-and-take (for eventual reformation into a federal army).
Another point is the demand for new national state, which have two parts. One
is carving out new national states from the existing national states and the
other, creation of national area or self-rule (for sub-ethnic groups or
minorities within a dominant ethnic state). This is another category. The two
demands are not wrong. They are correct. But in order to do this all stakeholders
would have to sit down together and draw up standard, like pondering on this is doable and this
not, to agree on a criteria and only after this it could proceed step by step.
So the demands are justified but time is needed. Regarding the formation of a
Bamar State (the majority ethnic group in Burma without its own ethnic state
but diversified into seven Division or Regions now), it is not an issue which
could not be negotiated. We could work on it. Places where the majority Bamar
ethnic group reside could be lump together to create a state if it is
desirable. After such undertaking, Divisions or Regions with mixed ethnicity
could form nationalities states, if the people residing there like to form
them. All these could be done by sitting down together through negotiation, but
would have to give time.
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
So it is now questionable if there is such trust on each other to be able to
sit down and negotiate?
Sai Wansai: We still cannot overcome
the first hurdle of trust-building among each other. Why we couldn't overcome
this is due to the fact that the people who are sitting around the discussion
circle still need to accept the idea that they are equal. To be
straight-forward, the Tatmadaw administrative class considered itself as being above
all the negotiation participants. Because of such consideration, it cannot
accept other participants as equal fellow negotiation partners, leading to the
inability even to start the trust-building process. As the first point, the
Tatmadaw must accept that it is equal with the others and the meeting and
negotiation conference is being held in unity together, with commonly drawn
agendas. If this could be done practically, really believing in it,
trust-building is not an impossible thing that we cannot achieve.
U Kyaw Zan Tha:
Some might even say most of what we have discussed concerning the second
Panglong Conference seems to be only talking about impossible situations, with
negative outlook and pessimism. But whatever it is, in my mind I pray that may
this convention be able to overcome all the difficulties and be successful.
Sai Wansai: I also like to wish like
you that this convention be able to serve as a grain of sand or a block of
brick that would help in the trust-building process.
Tags: Opinion
