Back to Tell’s Land (D-4)
Day 4-
Monday, 18 January 2016
A country
may be as small not just as a plum, but even as a grain of sesame. However, if
a multitude of races is living there, rights of autonomy corresponding to their
population must be granted.
Tun Myint
Taunggyi (1920-1997), “To join or to part”
Today, we are
meeting the officials from the foreign ministry in Bern, starting with Mr.
Georges Martin, Deputy Secretary of State.
He is a gracious
man, not one of those we have often run into, who tries to dictate to us what
we should do. But one thing he says stick in my mind, “If Germans and French,
who used to hate each other so much, can live together, I don’t see any reason
why you cannot.”
Which reminds
me of one of Einstein’s famous quotes;
If my
theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German
and France will declare me a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue,
France will say that I’m a German, and Germany will declare that I’m a few. (I’m cheating, of course, by copying from my Safari.)
We then talk
to the officials working on development and humanitarian engagement in Burma.
From whom we learn they have been in the country since 2008, when Tsunami
Nargis which ravaged its south became a household word.
They speak about the 4 pillars of
assistance they are giving to Burma: Vocational training, health, agriculture and
peace.
Later in the evening, we talk to the
Human Security Division people, where I ask one question posed by the
activists: Why are you helping us? Is it just a form of apology for Swiss
business concession in Burma?
The official, Mr. Konstantin Obolensky,
emphatically says no to this. Bern’s humanitarian operations in Burma have
nothing to do with business. It is only doing “what the constitution tells us
to do.”
(Article 2-4 of the Swiss charter, which
I looked up later, says: It shall strive to promote a just and peaceful
international order.)
The delegation then discusses decentralization in Switzerland. After
which Sao Yawd Serk remarks, “Decentralization pulls diverse peoples
together, while centralization pushes them apart.”
These are the only things I can remember,
as I’m taking notes today. But what I see there, I’ll always remember.
At 12:30, we go to the dining room to
have lunch. Opposite the window, where we can view the three Alpine peaks in
the distance, an official points out one of them, almost obscured by the mist,
as the Eiger of Clint Eastwoods’ “Eiger Sanction”. A more famous peak, the
Matterhorn, however, is in the country’s southeast, and we won’t have time to
visit it, let alone climb.
 |
The domed hall
(Photo: www.parlament.ch)
|
We then climb down the stairs
to take a look at their pride and joy: the statue on the second floor facing
the entrance, depicting the three canton leaders taking a solemn oath in 1291
to come to each other’s aid if attacked, that they were “all for one, and for
all.”
Now where do you think I have heard of these words before? Of course,
it’s right from “The Three Musketeers.” However since the novel was published
only centuries later in 1844, it’s evident Alexander Dumas couldn’t have
invented the words. And since its original words came from Latin, it could have
been even earlier than 1291.
I’m learning.
 |
The three canton leaders taking —oath of alliance
(Photo: www.parlament.ch)
|
Then our guide points us to the dome over
our heads where coats of arms representing the cantons are surrounding the
national coat of arms with words in Latin, “Unus pro omnibus” over it, and
“Omnes pro uno” under it.
At the foot stairs are four statues, each representing the 4 main
regions/nationalities of the country: German, French, Italian and Romansch, all
ready to defend the country against invaders.
When you see all these, what occurs to
you? But this is what comes to my mind:
The big statues of the three kings
in Naypyitaw. If you are a Burman, you may feel that since this country was
formed by these (Burman) kings, so it’s “my duty” to preserve and protect it.
 |
The coats of arms
(Photo: www.parlament.ch)
|
But when a non-Burman sees it, the
feeling is different. He/she doesn’t feel ownership or belonging to it. What
he/she feels instead is that we were conquered by these people. What we own,
have been taken by them. Only by retaking them, can we be free.
On the other hand, suppose there is a statue of Aung San sitting
together with Shan, Kachin and Chin leaders to sign the Panglong Agreement that
created this Union, how would they feel, Burman or non-Burman?
The
reader won’t need me to tell him/her anything.
A sense of ownership and belonging,
that’s what all these paintings and statues instill in one.
Symbols certainly are psychologically
very important. It’s one lesson I’ll never forget, even if I’m forgetting everything
else.
I just hope we can do the same back home.
Tags: Opinion
