By: Sai Wansai
Wednesday, 03 October 2012

During the last two weeks, it seems as though Burma’s political epicentre has moved to the U.S., particularly around New York and Washington D.C., with big names like Aung San Suu Kyi, President Thein Sein and Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) leader Hkun Htun Oo descending on U.S. soil one after another. While Suu Kyi and Hkun Htun Oo were actually there to receive awards, the President’s purpose was, first and foremost to deliver speech at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, and as a presidential spokesman puts it, to make use of the golden opportunity of branding and marketing Burma. Of course, Suu Kyi was also tasked with the lobbying for removal of sanctions, whereas the President’s job was to sell his domestic reform program to the international community. Apart from that, all three were engaged in building awareness of the current internal situation, each on its own outlook, in relation to the unfolding political scenarios within Burma.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aung San Suu Kyi’s honeymoon with the West, particularly with the U.S., at this writing, is still in full swing. She has, to date,  met President Obama, Secretary of States Clinton, UN General Secretary Ba Ki-Moon, famous politicians from Republican and as well, Democratic parties, visiting VOA and RFA, giving speeches in various universities, meetings with Burmese communities and collecting accolades across the U.S, including the Congress' highest civilian honour in a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda.

She seems to be at the height of her popularity and viewing at the numerous video pod cast, it is evident that she is enjoying every moment of it.

Of course, it is nothing wrong with it and in a way she really deserves the limelight, after years of house arrest and sacrifices she has to endure. But the problem is that she is becoming less vocal on key issues and public grievances, notably on the issues of ethnic self-determination and ethnic conflict, sounding more like a government organ than head of the opposition party.

Not very long ago, she was bluntly saying that she didn’t accept the 2008 Constitution. But since she reversed her position and the National League for Democracy (NLD) entered the parliament, following the party re-registration, running bi-elections, winning most of the 40 or so seats and accepting the Lower House of Parliament’s Rule of Law Committee post as chairperson, her tone has changed to sound like being part of the government in power, when actually the NLD should be an opposition party and has to point out the flaws and irregularities of the ruling party.

Suu Kyi’s close cooperation with the President is unclear, especially whether it is within the mould of a coalition or as an underling of the governing party, the Union Solidarity Development Party (USDP). If the relation is a coalition between the USDP and NLD, Suu Kyi should at least occupy one of the important ministries, like Foreign affairs, Commerce or Home Affairs. But now, she has been given only a committee-level post, which is way far below than that of a ministry. One could only say that the arrangement between the USDP and NLD is quite strange; or perhaps, it is just an understanding between two individuals.

The most outstanding blunder though was when she tried to argue, in relation to the conflict in Kachin State, that “resolving conflict is not about condemnation, but about finding out the root cause of the conflict”. This stand has been taken as reluctance to face up to the moral commitment and reality of a convinced democrat, a fitting behaviour of Nobel prize winner and also that gross human rights violations exist in Kachin State, which are so well documented by reputed rights organisations.

On top of that, either to woo the military top brass or out of sheer sympathy, she even said in one of her statements that she has “soft spot” for them. It is as though to announce that her collaboration with the military is now complete. No one could imagine why she doesn’t foresee the sensitivity of such statement, given that the military has been using “rape as a weapon of war” on non-Burman ethnic women for decades.

Also, she lobbied hard for the removal of sanctions, which she has helped put in place decades ago by saying: “I do support the easing of sanctions. I think that our people must start taking responsibility for their own destiny. I do not think we should depend on US sanctions to keep up the momentum of our movement for democracy,” at an event organized by the Asia Society, US Institute of Peace and State Department. (Irrawaddy- 20.09.12)

SNLD, Ethnic and USCB responses to removal of sanctions

No wonder, SNLD Chairman told reporters in Washington DC, on 20 September, regarding the Suu Kyi’s about turn position on Sanctions Issue: “The trust in her [Suu Kyi] has gone down, if she goes on like this she will not represent the people. She does not say anything for the public.”

In the same vein, The Irrawaddy reported on 20 September, two ethnic leaders, Karen National Union General-Secretary Zipporah Sein and Nai Han Thar, the secretary of both the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) and New Mon State Party (NMSP) completely disagreed with Suu Kyi’s advocating for the lifting of sanctions. Both leaders were of the opinion that sanctions should remain in place until genuine peace and political change become a reality in Burma.

In short the timing of full scale lifting of sanctions might lessen the possibility of achieving genuine peace and democratic change, given that the armed conflicts are ongoing, notably in Kachin and Shan states, where over half of the 500 or so Burma Army’s battalions are deployed, despite the signing of ceasefire agreements with 13 ethnic armed groups. From the non-Burman ethnic groups’ point of view a tripartite political dialogue - involving the government/military, Burman political opposition as a whole and non-Burman ethnic groups- is the only viable approach to end the conflict and restore peace.

On September 27, the U.S. Campaign for Burma (USCB) expresses its disappointment over the U.S. Congress and Administration’s decision to lift the remaining sanctions imposed on the Burmese military regime and its successor, so-called civilian government led by former General Thein Sein.

There are three major areas where changes are not in effect. First, the judiciary system is still not independent and impartial. Many laws and decrees created by the successive military regimes to oppress democratic opposition are still active and being implemented.  Second, the country’s economy is still controlled by the military, crony capitalists, and families of the regime. Third, the Burmese military is still above the law and dominant in the country’s political affairs with unchecked powers. There is no sign in sight that the Burmese military will stop committing human rights violations and come under civilian control.

The lifting of sanctions on Burma delegitimizes ethnic nationalities’ demands for a cessation of hostilities in Kachin state, and prematurely rewards the Burmese regime while the military undertakes a clear escalation of violence. The absence of sanctions removes the motivation for the government to engage in further and serious negotiations with ethnic groups as well as political reform leading towards the 2015 election. The removal of sanctions condones the violence, exacerbates the conflict, destabilizes the negotiations, and sets back the peace process. (Source: USCB – 27.09.2012)

President Thein Sein

On 27 September, in New York, President Thein Sein’s UN speech, he mentioned what has been undertaken to further his reform initiative as below:

Myanmar is making progress on her democratic path. But this has not been an easy task. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to share our experiences in this regard. In the ongoing reform process, we are facing challenges as well as opportunities. Within a short time, the people of Myanmar have been able to bring about amazing changes. I feel greatly privileged and honored to dutifully serve the people as their President at this crucial time in the history of our nation. I truly take my people as my own parents and elders.

After taking office about 18 months ago, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the national races, political parties, civil societies and the people at large have been taking tangible irreversible steps in the democratic transition and reform process. Leaving behind the system of authoritarian government wherein the administrative, legislative and judicial powers were centralized, we have now been able to put in place a democratic government and a strong, viable parliament following a practice of check and balance.

The then main opposition leader Nobel laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is now participating in the Pyithu Hluttaw (Parliament) not only in her capacity as an MP (Member of Parliament) but also that of the Chairperson of the Rule of Law and Stability Committee of the Parliament. During this week she is also in New York. As a Myanmar citizen, I would like to congratulate her for the honours she has received in this country in recognition of her efforts for democracy. (Source: Presidential Statement – New York, 27 September 2012)

To buttress his support for Aung San Suu Kyi, the President in his interview with the BBC, Hardtalk programme, on 29 September went even further by talking about the possibility of Suu Kyi becoming president.

"Whether she will become a leader of the nation depends on the will of the people. If the people accept her, then I will have to accept her," he said.
"There isn't any problem between me and Aung San Suu Kyi. We are working together."

Although he personally endorsed Suu Kyi to occupy presidential position, if her party wins the 2015 elections, he maintained that the amendment of the constitution will be up to the Parliament and the people, according to the provided provision.

In a latest interview, on 30 September, with BBC, Burmese section, with Daw Tin Htar Swe, the President reiterated that the Kachin conflict continued for the Kachin Independence Army/Organisation (KIA/KIO) refused to issue orders to stop fighting, as he did with the Burma Army. Fighting continued not because of the army refusal to follow presidential orders but happened out of self-defence, when attacked by the KIA.

In the same denial tone, he rejected the existence of the hardliners within the regime, but merely those who are slow in implementing their duties. He also protected the former SPDC, military regime of misusing the gas revenue by stating the channelling of reinvestment in the gas extracting business and the cost for building of infrastructures. As an example, he said that during the one hundred years or so British colonial rule, there was only one bridge built, whereas the former military regime had managed to install 11 of them. He also stressed that the reform today happened, due to the careful planning made by the previous military regime.

Meanwhile, the President was enthusiastically welcomed back home, after a week-long U.S. visit, by a few hundreds well-wishers on 01 October, notably for his ground-breaking U.N. speech as a president from Burma, in nearly 50 years.

Hkun Htun Oo

In his interview with RFA, on 24 and 25 September, Hkun Htun Oo outlined the weakness of Thein Sein’s peace process by pointing out the inadequate implementation or follow up of the chain of command, which has contributed to the ongoing armed clashes between the Burma Army and Shan State Army /Shan State Progress Party (SSA/SSPP). He said that he informed the President and as well, Minister for the President's Office U Aung Min, concerning the continued clashes and that they should be stopped, to which the President agreed. When the SSA made contact and relayed the message to the Burma Army troops surrounding its headquarter in Wanhai to withdraw, SSA was told that Burma Army took orders only from the Commander-in-Chief and not the President.

Hkun Htun Oo said it was unacceptable that while keeping military pressure on SSA, both North and South, which have already signed ceasefire with the regime, the National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA) or Sai Leun group is being left alone and allowed to do business as usual. He said that this kind of double standard wouldn’t be beneficial to the ceasefire process and there should be only one system approach to it.

He further said the ceasefire agreement, which had been in place with the KIA for 17 years collapsed and the fighting restarted under Thein Sein’s government. This indicated that the regime approach to the peace process was completely wrong.

Regarding the SNLD participation in the forthcoming 2015 elections, Hkun Htun Oo said that no decision has been made, due to the fact that  the situation was still unclear whether it would be the system of winner-take-all, as is the case now, or proportional representation, as has been talked about recently.

For the time being, SNLD is only building awareness of it political platform of equality, rights of self-determination and genuine federalism among the people. He added that only a tripartite dialogue, involving all groups from the ethnic nationalities, all democratic forces and the military plus government, will be able to solve the problems.

In a recent article written by Hkun Htun Oo and released by The Atlantic, titled: “Burma May Have Elections—but Can It Become a Real Democracy?” he outlined his political outlook as below:

Our national reconciliation process can't be achieved without dialogue -- including political talks. No dialogue, no reconciliation: It's that simple.
It's hard to be sanguine about our political prospects as a country so long as the most influential single force shaping our political future -- namely: the current regime -- remains in denial about the need for dialogue and accommodation. The regime must recognize a right to dissent. The minority must respect decisions made by the majority, and, in turn, the majority must protect the minority's rights.

As long as Burma is a diverse society made up of independent groups and organizations organizations representing different opinions and approaches, meaningful and responsible dialogue will remain essential. Can we shun political dialogue in the hope that merely holding elections will be enough to build democracy in our country?

We can't. Just as military means hasn't been the answer to the question of how to build long-term peace, elections alone won't be the answer to the question of how to build a lasting democracy. Whatever specific set of institutional answers to our problems we choose, these answers must reflect the Burmese people's desire to live in an environment characterized by fair treatment and equal opportunity for all.

United Nationalities Federal Council

Meanwhile, a joint-delegation of the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) and the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB) has arrived in the U.S. to address the current political stalemate in the peace processes in Burma.

The delegation, comprising a unified collection of ethnic leaders, is headed by David Tharckabaw, Chairman of the NCUB and one of the UNFC’s Vice-Chairmen. Other members of the delegation include: Khun Okker, Joint General Secretary of, and spokesperson for, the UNFC; UNFC Member of Foreign Affairs, Sao Swy Mangrai; UNFC Member of Military Affairs, La Awng; and Moe Chan, U.S. Representative for the NCUB.

In a letter, dated 27 September, to President Thein Sein written by UNFC Chairman, Lt.General N-Ban La writes:

Though it is possible to negotiate for resolution of the points from (1) to (4), contained in the peace negotiation program at the Union level, issued by the government under your leadership - our view is that Point (5) Setting up a political party; Point (6) To accept the 2008 Constitution and to carry out amendment in the parliament according to the approval of the majority; Point (7) For eternal peace, the armed organizations are to enter the legal fold, enjoy equality, live and earn a living in accordance with the Constitution; and Point (8) Negotiation for transformation of armed organizations into one and only one armed organization, in accordance with the Constitution - are measures to control our armed ethnic resistance organizations and mould them into an entity as desired by the government, before any political settlement is achieved. As these deny equality, freedom and justice, it is not possible for us to accept them. Accordingly, we would like to urge you to review and modify them so as to prevent the internal peace building process from stalling and breaking up.
The UNFC 6 points peace process endorsed by the ethnic nationalities is also included in the letter.

1. The armed ethnic nationality organizations, political parties, women and youths organizations and civil society organizations are to hold meetings and lay down points to be included in the Framework for Political Dialogue;
   1. Representatives of the Union government and the unified representatives of the armed ethnic organizations are to hold meetings and establish the Framework for Political Dialogue –
   2. Holding meetings in a place acceptable to both sides;
2. Proceedings of the meetings are to be conducted in the presence of neutral international observers and the points agreed upon are to be promulgated jointly for public knowledge.
3. After establishing the Framework for Political Dialogue by representatives of the government and the armed ethnic resistance organizations, conferences of the ethnic peoples are to be held in the states or in divisions, as necessary, for clarification and approval;
4. To hold a national conference of the various nationalities participated by representatives of the ethnic armed organizations, political parties, women and youths organizations and civil society organizations;
5. A Union conference, participated by an equal number of representatives from the ethnic forces, the democratic forces and the government is to be held in the form, acceptable to the three forces, and based on Panlong Spirit; the agreements adopted by the conference are to be regarded as the “Union Accord” and
6. The Union Accord is to be implemented in accordance with a time frame, precisely.

Aftermath of sanctions removal

Now that the trade sanctions are almost entirely removed, there is no more leverage left for the West to pressure the Thein Sein regime. And as such, the fragile reform process could go either down the drain or accelerate along the prescribed roadmap and guided through by the regime.

One future scenario could be that the regime pushed through its roadmap and mould the country to its liking, under unitary system, with the military and Burman ethnic group dominating the political decision-making power, at the expense of the non-Burman ethnic groups losing their ethnic identities, rights of self-determination and equality. And the other possible scene could be the government starting to compromise and accommodate, which at the moment is highly unlikely, with a view of returning to Panglong Agreement of 1947, leading to a genuine federalism and ending the ethnic conflict.

The present 2008 Constitution and also the 1974 Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) Constitution both are unitary system based, intentionally sought to reject the original agreement of federalism, agreed and signed by General Aung San, in 1947, on behalf of the Ministerial Burma or Burma Proper.

The reason, although not spoken, seems to direct at changing the concept of nationalism based on multi-ethnic state to individual citizenship, coupled with civil rights by disregarding ethnic diversity. In other words, the unitary system is to replace the multi-ethnic state concept and get rid of various ethnic identities, once and for all. The exaggeration of the present Thein Sein government and successive military regimes’ 135 races count, said to inhabit Burma, is the case in point. The regime’s logic behind is that it is much easier and reasonable to just get assimilated into the Burman majority race than upholding one’s ethnic identity.

This concept might probably find broad acceptance among the Burman majority for its numerical population advantage, and could find their need satisfaction under individual citizenship and civil rights, according to the universally accepted democratic norms.

But if Thein Sein regime is pinning its hope that partial civil and citizenship rights should be enough to drown the dissatisfaction and aspirations of the non-Burman ethnic groups, without addressing the safeguarding of ethnic identity, cultural rights and rights to control their own natural resources, it is bound to regret; for the non-Burman ethnic groups will definitely continue with the resistance, as they have already done for decades. The ball is now in the regime’s court.

The contributor is the General Secretary of Shan Democratic Union (SDU) - Editor