Is Aung San Suu Kyi misinterpreting Panglong Agreement ?
Lately following
the recent meeting between the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) signatory 8
Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) and Aung San Suu Kyi, de facto leader of the
National League for Democracy (NLD) regime, her likely misinterpretation of
Panglong Agreement seems to be disturbing quite a lot of ethnic nationalities'
minds.
Suu Kyi's spokesman
Zaw Htay was telling the press about "secession minus 21 Century Panglong
Conference" and that his boss has explained the necessity of secession
clause - ingrained in 1947 Union of
Burma Constitution - was brought in, on 12 February1947 celebrated as Union Day
since then, at the demand of non-Bamar ethnic nationalities to ensure that they
would not be overwhelmed by the Bamar majority as a guarantee, and in no way
should be seen as a treaty between ethnic groups or states, but only as an
instrument to gain speedy independence from the British.
This argument
whether it is true or not needs to be scrutinized, so that the crucial basic
concept regarding Panglong Agreement could be agreed upon, before embarking on
the national reconciliation path, which is filled with hindrances, booby traps
and political manoeuvring, so to speak.
Firstly, it should
be noted that Panglong Agreement is being accepted and understood as a treaty
between Bamar state and other non-Bamar ethnic states, which has been the basis
of legal cooperation to form the Union of Burma in 1948.
Shan State Progress
Party/Shan State Army (SSPP/SSA) Vice-Chairman Sao Hkun Hseng equated the
Panglong treaty with the liking of United Nations Charter, which cannot be
altered, in his recent interview with the Democratic Voice of Burma.
As such, if the
Bamar leadership seeks to nullify it in any way, the legal binding of states
between states will be violated and that would spell the end of any voluntary
cooperation to exist as a unified country or state.
Secondly, the
successive military regimes continuous efforts to rewrite the interpretation of
the treaty is well known to the ethnic nationalities. And that is the notion of
Bamar being the traditional ruler of all the ethnic nationalities and with the
British withdrawal as a colonial power, it's mantle has been retaken by the Bamar
leadership again. In other words, the non-Bamar ethnic territories have been
owned by the Bamar kings, since ancient times.
With such
traditional claims the Bamar political elite, including the military starts to
embark on a twisted logic of reinterpretation of Panglong Agreement of 1947.
The analogy is that
the treaty is like dismantling the scaffolding after the building of a “Chedi”
in Thai, “Sedi” in Burmese, or “Stupa” - a mound-like or hemispherical
structure containing relics, typically the remains of Buddhist monks or nuns,
and used as a place of meditation - is finished.
But the problem is
the ethnic nationalities see the treaty as being a Stupa, a permanent
structure, and not at all as a supporting structure.
The cardinal
question now is if the NLD and Suu Kyi adhere to such a Bamar ethnocentric way
of interpretation regarding Panglong Agreement. If it is a big “YES”, we all
will be back to square one and a very long, long struggle ahead of us. This, in
turn, would lead us to ponder on other options than only relying on Suu Kyi's
good will and understanding, to achieve our rights of self-determination and
other political aspirations that have been denied and robbed from all of us.
Let us hope that
this is not really the case.
Tags: Opinion
