The Union Peace Conference #1: Some clouds and some silver linings
This review (originally in Burmese)
appeared on 23 January, a week after the Union Peace Conference #1 was
successfully held in Naypyitaw, 12-15 January. The author is Dr Sai Oo, country
representative, of the Pyidaungsu Institute (PI) for Peace and Dialogue, who is
based in Rangoon. Comments by participants at the review meeting are added by
SHAN.
The conference was opened by key leaders
of the country: President Thein Sein, Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing and
the November elections winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and attended by diplomats and
observers from the UN, Japan and China, among them, thereby lending the much
needed credibility to the controversial Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA)
that was signed almost 3 months earlier. Their presence had also helped boost
legitimacy to the ongoing peace process.
Among the more than 1,000 other
participants were young military officers, 15 from each of the 10 military
regions in the non-Burman ethnic areas of the country. Listening to their
presentation, one can easily surmise they had done their homework on federalism
before joining the conference.
Here are some of the selected lines from
their discussions:
·
Federalism is not secession
·
Federal countries prosper
·
The Tatmadaw (military) is
pro-change
·
Federalism distributes power
between the central and states, and there are two legislative houses
·
States have separate powers and
the central cannot interfere with state powers
·
States have the right to
exercise 3 sovereign powers
·
States have the right of self
determination
At the same time, there are other
statements made by them that may not be so reassuring:
·
A centralized federalism
·
No separate constitutions for
states
·
Interchangeable use of “right
of self determination” and “autonomy” as though they were identical
·
Opposition to ethnic-based
states, expressing preference to geographical-based states (“Then they should
get rid of ‘Myanmar’ first, which is but a synonym to ‘Bamar’,” exclaimed a
participant)
Other than that, there are three things
that will serve as reminders that the federalism issue is not going to be plain
sailing:
·
The fact that military officers,
in the end, must obey orders even if they don’t like them
·
The fact that the military is
the real power behind the throne in every ministry and from the top to the
bottom in the country’s different administrative levels through its General
Administration Department (GAD)
·
Insistence by the commander-in-chief
and his lieutenants of the “one country, one military” principle in opposition
to the Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs)’ equally insistent demand to have
state defense forces at least until mutual trust is attained
·
Moreover, although other
dialogue topics like ‘land and natural resources management’ should logically
be part and parcel of federalism, military representatives had entered the
deliberations as if they had nothing to do with federalism
On the EAOs side, they appeared to be
stronger on federalism during the conference. Nothing surprising because they
have been at it for decades and some for more than half a century.
Unfortunately they seemed to have joined the conference without prior
consultation and agreement. The result was precious time being spent on a
debate among themselves on establishment of new states, that could only serve
in the interests of the government and the military. “Besides, what’s the use
of having new states, when even old states are states only in name?” one
reviewer asked rhetorically. “We also need to consider the possibility of some
of our neighbors taking advantage of the matter.”
Dr Sai Oo concludes his preliminary
analysis with the following suggestions:
·
Intensive public consultations
in order to produce a common stand (“The 1960-62 federal movement failed in
part because the people in general were ignorant about it,” commented a lawyer)
·
Equally intensive
capacity-building programs (Federal study trips to countries such as India,
Germany, Switzerland and others plus at least 2 seminars and workshops for each
dialogue topics)
·
Study trips to other states and
regions
·
Encouraging more participation
by youth (“And women,” said a female participant. “Don’t forget women.”)
“We still have a maximum of 5 more
years, with 3 Union Peace Conferences per year, if the peace process goes
according to the resolution on the last day of UPC#1,” said a participant. “That
should be sufficient time for our people to shape their own destiny.”
I do hope he’s right.
The author is President and
Co-founder of the Shan Herald Agency for News (SHAN). He is also serving as
Managing Director for the Pyidaungsu Institute (PI) for Peace and Dialogue,
which has offices both in Chiangmai and Yangon/Rangoon.
Tags: Opinion
