As President Obama starts to visit Burma, from 12 to 14 November, many concerned parties from government institutions, democratic oppositions, ethnic political parties, resistance armies to local and international NGOs are weighing and airing the pros and cons of the likely outcomes, from his forth-coming, second visit.

o date, the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), Kachin Alliance (KA), National League for Democracy (NLD), Human Rights Watch (HRW), Ethnic Nationalities Affairs Center (ENAC), some 40 US Representatives and various forums assessing Obama's Burma policy, among others, have doled out statements and opinions on what Obama could do to help ease the political deadlock and stalled peace process, which has led to the back-sliding of democratization-reform process and deterioration of the political atmosephere of the country as a whole.

According to The Diplomat report of 7 November, a senior administration official spoke on condition of anonymity as Obama prepares to visit Burma on a three-country Asia swing, the main purpose is to question the authenticity of reform there and whether Washington is being tough enough on the Naypyitaw government.

Key issues for many Burma observers include sectarian violence in Arakan State, also known as Rakhine State, constitutional reform, conduct of the elections – including whether opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi will be allowed to run – and the potential for a ceasefire with ethnic groups battling the government.
But before addressing key issues surrounding Burma, it would be essential to briefly go back to a short historical account, so that the linkage to the country's contemprory woes could be understood.

Burma a new political entity
The country we all know as Burma or Myanmar, as termed by the Burmese military regime, is a relatively new country. It is a new political entity or a country made up of at least three countries, namely: Burma Proper, Karenni State and Federated 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 formation 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 seized 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 or Republic of the Union of Myanmar, as named by the present Burmese regime, ceased to exist.

The point is that the Panglong Agreement of 1947 has been breached by the Burmese military regime in 1962, by nullifying the 1948 Constitution, which formed the basis of the Union of Burma. And since, the Burman state, represented by the Burmese military has breached its contractual obligation, which is the sole legal bond between the Shan, Kachin and Chin, the union ceased to exist in a formal and legal sense. In other words, there is no more such a political entity called “Union of Burma” or “Republic of the Union of Myanmar”. In legal aspect, the status of non-Burman ethnic nationalities has returned to a pre-Panglong Agreement period. In other words, the Burman state, also known as Ministerial Burma or Burma Proper, has overnight turned from being a partner to an aggressor. And the non-Burman ethnic nationalities are waging a resistance war to wrestle back their rights of self-determination, which have been forcefully taken away from them.

However, the successive Burmese military, including the present Thein Sein regime, continues to act as if the legal union is still intact, when actually it is coercively keeping it together by means of military occupation and intimidation through gross human rights violations on all the non-Burman ethnic population. And thus, the former, voluntary union in a legal sense ceased to exist, but only a forceful, so-called union, imposed by military might, continues to exist as is known to us today.

Key issues and suggestions
Generally the key issues surrounding Burma could be roughly identified as problems of national reconciliation, ethnic conflict, human rights violations, land confiscation, poverty reduction and sectarian violence.

The Diplomat, on 7 November, writes that Obama's senior administration official said the focus will be on “talking in sort of broad principles, that we want to see constitutional reform that moves power away from the military towards civilian control, that ensures that all of the people of Burma, including the ethnic nationalities, can participate fully in the country’s political processes.”

Forty four US Representatives, on 7 November, wrote a letter regarding the need to have a free and fair, 2015 nationwide election and to pressure and persuade the Thein Sein regime, that Aung San Suu Kyi could participate, according to Eleven News Media report of 9 November.

The letter mentioned that the failure to release the remaining political prisoners, increased curtailing of press freedom, ongoing armed conflicts in ethnic areas, and the religious, hate campaigns against the Muslim population occurring in Rakhine State are indications of political process deterioration.

It further said that the government and the military should participate in constitutional amendment and terminating or halting the armed conflict in ethnic areas. And also urged Obama to blacklist and punish those who refuse to comply with the demand.

In a letter from UNFC Chairman, General N' Ban La addressed to President Obama, dated 3 November 2014, part of it writes that “the right of all ethnic nationalities to participate in a genuine federal union; a military code of conduct to govern conduct of both the Burma army troops and troops of the ethnic armed organizations during the period of nationwide ceasefire and political dialogue; post-ceasefire interim arrangements; measures for joint monitoring of the ceasefire; and a framework for post-ceasefire political dialogue” are essential and must be acceptable if a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) is to be achieved.

ENAC briefing, with regards to President Obama November visit to Burma, dated 2 November mentioned five crucial points on what he could do during his visit to Burma to support the peace process. They are:

•    To meet NLD leader, Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic leaders, including SNLD Chairman, Hkun Htun Oo;
•    To urge that the NCA be robust, so that hostilities would not resume and foundation of political dialogue process be laid to address the underlying grievances that have let to six decades of civil war;
•    Encouraging international and Burmese leadership participation in NCA talks and signing as witnesses, to build confidence among peace process stakeholders;
•    To emphasize that additional loosening of sanctions and other economic benefits would be conditioned to  cessation of military violence, end of human rights violations, establishment of civilian control over military, agreement of peace process that provides guarantees against renewed fighting, including a military code of conduct and joint monitoring and as well a sincere political dialogue;
•    To address the free and fair 2015 general election and amendment of 2008 Constitution, leading to equality, democracy and rights of self-determination for all the people of Burma.

The Kachin Alliance, based in Philadelphia writes to President Obama, on 7 November, part of which are as follows:
On the eve of your second visit to the Union of Burma, we call upon your administration to seek to strengthen the engagement policy, which we hope will foster genuine change and durable peace.

1.    We request the US government to actively participate in the national reconciliation process by serving as an observer in the peace talks, and act as a witness to the signing of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement which would subsequently address issues of federalism and self-determination put forward by ethnic minority groups.
2.    As Burma is home to a multi-ethnic population, we desire your Administration to demand both President Thein Sein and opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to commit to defending the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, many of whom have been internally displaced by armed conflict or inter-religious strife and living in deplorable situations in makeshift camps along the border areas.
3.    We urge your government to call upon President Thein Sein and his ruling party to amend the constitution in a display of genuine intention to work for peaceful coexistence amongst the diverse peoples of the Union.
4.    We urge your administration to refrain from giving legitimacy and prestige through premature military engagement.

As Burma is on the cusp of a momentous change, we believe that a robust and dynamic interaction with all stakeholders will ensure a brighter future for the Union.

Resolving ethnic conflict key factor
Derek Mitchell, ambassador to Burma, said in a recent interview, on 3 November, with the VOA, “This country's deep, widespread, complicated situation is not quite known to the American people.” And as he rightly stated it is indeed not an easy task on where to start looking for the main cause of conflict.

The successive military regimes have muddied the political water to an extent that no one knows where to start. Imagine, the country now have all kinds of woes one could think about, from political dissatisfaction to poverty, from human rights violations to land confiscation, and from ethnic conflict to religious intolerance, just to name a few. But still the real cause of the problem has always been there, only our visions have been blurred by so much diversification of problems created, intentionally and unintentionally, by the military dictatorship.

The main key factor is the emergence of tyrannical rule, headed by General Ne Win, who took over the country in 1962, under the pretext of “saving the union from disintegration”, while ignoring the fact that the “Shan Federal Proposal” of 1961 was the sole political solution or way out available to address the “constitutional crisis” that was holding the country hostage and threatening to explode at that time.

Not long after, the military regime heightened the, already simmering, ethnic conflict to a new height, pushing each and every non-Burman ethnic groups to take up arms all over the country. This, in turn, has given the pretext for the military to hold on to power to preserve the country from disintegration. The military then embark on a Burmanization program to promote its racial supremacy aspiration, through military occupation of the ethnic homelands and institutionalized assimilation scheme on all non-Burman ethnic nationalities. To make the long story short, the nationwide insurgencies we are seeing today is the making of Burmese political class and successive military regimes, including the present quasi-civilian or USDP-Military regime.

The problem is that the successive military regimes do not only suppress the non-Burman ethnic groups, but also crackdown on democratic elements and forbid democratic principle to take roots. The present quasi-civilian government, although it has permitted limited individual liberty and partial press freedom, ongoing human rights violations in ethnic areas are the order of the day, as can be seen by the recent extra-judicial killing of Ko Par Gyi, a free lance journalist in Karen State.

And thus, the best place to start is to tackle the problem or issue of ethnic conflict, first and foremost. It is not that the Thein Sein regime doesn't know the importance and overarching nature of ethnic conflict, but only not sincere in handling the problem. It also knows that this is the problem of constitutional arrangement, which has been denied to the non-Burman ethnic groups from the outset, since independence from the British. In other words, the denial of equality, democracy and rights of self-determination, anchored in a genuine form of federal union have been the core issue that needs to be addressed. And failing to accommodate this aspiration will never lead to the resolution of the conflict, but only exacerbate the existing conflict situation.

In sum, resolving ethnic conflict is only possible through political settlement, which means accepting the aspiration of ethnic equality through federal set up. If this is achieved, democratization and reconciliation will follow, gradually creating a favourable atmosphere to tackle other pressing issues and problems, while harmonizing the culture of peaceful co-habitation, rather than hatred and animosity. Of course, this is a tall order and some might even say it is pure romanticism. But one has to start somewhere and the most appropriate place to begin is resolving ethnic conflict first through sincere accommodation and not total warfare.

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