Scholar: Why Burma won’t allow Shan secession
The
reader may have several answers, most of which we all have already either read
or heard, especially that Shan State is rich in natural resources which is
true, but means little compared to Burma’s geopolitical concerns. So says Josef
Silverstein, Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University, in his 15 page Politics
in the Shan State: The Question of Secession from the Union of Burma (1958).
The 4th of July may be
Independence Day to the Americans. But to the people of Burma, it is the 4th
of January. And on that day in 1958, “the constitutional limitation on the
right of a state to secede from the Union” came to an end.
The 1947 constitution had laid
down 4 conditions in the implementation of the Right of Secession in Chapter
10:
1. Ten
years must elapse before the right can be exercised
2. To
implement it, two thirds of the State Council must approve a resolution to
secede
3. The
Head of State must notify the Union President of the vote, and the latter must
order a plebiscite held in the state under a commission appointed by himself
which is composed of an equal number of members from the Union and the state
4. Only
states which are not excluded from using the right may exercise the privilege
“In spite of the broad language
of the Constitution, only two states —
the Shan and Kayah —
are eligible to secede. Two others—the
Kachin and Karen—are
explicitly denied the right, while the remaining two states—the Special Chin
Division and Burma proper—are
usually considered outside of the discussion because the former is in many ways
the appendage of the latter and Burma proper is the nucleus around which all
the others cluster. Even though a whole chapter in the Constitution is devoted
to describing the conditions which must be fulfilled before a state can
withdraw from the Union, in effect, it is applicable only to one of the
eligible states—the
Shan State. It alone contains a powerful and articulate minority which is
seriously considering the question of secession,” according to Silverstein. (See the Secession Issue: To Part or
Together, Panglong.org, 14 June 2016)
But granted that the Shan State plebiscite
decided to set up its own independent nation, where would it go? “The answer
seems quite clear if one examines a map of the area,” says the author. “Because
it is landlocked and has no major navigable river to link it to the sea, the
state either would have to unify or ally with China, Thailand, or join with
another landlocked area—Laos.”
Among the three, “there seems to
be no political or economic reason—historic
or current—to
warrant the creation of a Laos-Shan union.” (The author may not be aware of a
Laotian resistance movement, Pathet Lao, led by Prince Souphanouvong, that had
taken refuge in Kengtung, adjacent Laos, before 1962.)
With the other two countries, the
situation is different:
“In military terms, it (a
merger) would bring China or Thailand into the heartland of the Union, and it
would create such an exposed border that defense of Burma would be nearly
impossible.”
The result was the following excerpt
from Prime Minister U Nu’s speech, delivered on 27 April 1957 in Lashio:
“…the reason that the United
States today is the strongest and most influential nation in the world is due
to the fact that Abraham Lincoln prevented the southern States from seceding
and thus consolidated the whole country. If only we are united our
future is indeed bright. Therefore, it is my constant prayer that this
remarkable episode from American history may serve as a very valuable lesson
for all of us.”
The speech was dubbed “a
declaration of war” by many Shan students and politicians.
The author concludes his paper
this way:
“In the end, the right must be
viewed in two ways: constitutionally, it is exercisable, politically, it is
not. So long as the state has the right in reserve, it will continue to give
the people a feeling of having a potential choice of either remaining in or
leaving the Union. If it attempts to exercise the right it may provoke the
Union to act as Lincoln acted, even though the Union of Burma’s Constitution
includes the right of secession, while that of the United States does not.”
Regrettably, Silverstein didn’t
have anything to say about how the war could be avoided by applying one of the
age-old Shan saying: Neither let the lotus blemished or the water turbid (Mo Ya
Hai Zam, Nam Ya Hai Khun)
But if he had any advice, it was
already too late.
On 21 May 1958, following the
Shan State Council’s failure to take a vote (according to still living sources,
the Council was warned not to) on the question whether or not to exercise the
right of secession, the first Shan armed resistance movement, Noom Seuk Harn,
was formed.
Tags: Opinion