政党社团之声
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    缅甸风云
[主页]->[政党社团之声]->[缅甸风云]->[Burmese case at the UNSC: A Silver Lining]
BURMA-缅甸风云
·果敢战乱是侵犯国家主权吗?
·走向更完整的联邦制
·大缅族主义情绪被煽动起来了
·由缅甸王朝末日说起
·缅甸果敢战争是内战或侵犯国家主权?
·缅甸果敢战争是内战或侵犯国家主权?
·由普京的锵锵之言讲起
·缅甸军队展开冷血进攻
·缅甸革命元老德钦丁米雅逝世
·缅甸军政府长寿百年?
·缅甸为民请命的名律师 U Aung Htoo
·中国为首迅速崛起
·缅甸UNFC对目前和谈与陆空攻击发表声明
·赛万赛谈最近缅甸和谈进展
·缅甸全国停火在拐弯爬行
·成龍——100%龙的传人
·缅甸果敢:温2009年知2015年
·停战!建设缅甸Federal邦联!
·缅甸全国停火会议五月初续开
·缅甸边签全国停火协议边打内战
·缅甸佤邦五月初续开全国停火会议
·缅甸UNFC主席给登盛总统的公开信
·缅甸众少数民族维护果敢兄弟
·缅甸佤邦五月初和平会议困难重重
·缅甸果敢军四月战果
·缅甸五月初佤邦和谈任重道远
·望缅甸联邦和平复兴
·缅甸佤邦棒桑全国停火会议开锣了
·缅甸佤邦棒桑全国停火会议首日
·缅甸佤邦棒桑和平会议第四天
·缅甸佤邦棒桑和谈会第五天
·缅甸佤邦棒桑峰会胜利闭幕
·缅甸民族武装组织邦康峰会公报
·缅甸三分鼎立,看谁出奇制胜
·缅军誓要以果敢之血洗其臭脚
·缅甸温教授谈“联邦”
·看中国如何应对缅军逼民地武缴枪
·从果敢战事痛忆白华红华互屠
·Great! 世界宗教议会!
·缅甸内战源于大缅族极端主义背叛彬龙协议
·缅甸独裁将军们四两拨千斤
·谈昂山素姬首次访华
·昂山素姬与女强人妈推姬
·昂山素姬与女强人妈推姬
·缅甸将军们放下屠刀就立地成佛?
·缅甸学生七七惨案永不忘!
·煎炸烘烤动植物食品极不健康
·笑+思考+运动 = 健脑强身
·KNDO 六十七周年建军节讲话
·缅甸阿尔茨海默症
·缅甸CNF正义的呼声!
·缅甸EAO不忘小兄弟民族
·缅甸和平夜长梦多险恶
·怀念王毅诚老师
·湖南窃贼偷佛国玉坠
·缅甸众民族武装怒吼了 !
·克伦民族抵抗组织怒吼了
·韩国逍遥游
·登盛政府会平稳移交政权吗?
·寄厚望于昂山素姬新政府
·且看登盛军民政府如何逊位
·Q类败类在神州复活
·克伦民族节68周年讲话
·缅甸UNFC扩大会议文告
·赛万赛谈缅甸联邦
· 赛万赛谈缅军最近动向
·温教授继续炮轰缅甸将军们!
·赛万赛谈掸邦掸族团结自救
·缅甸老华人忆过去盼未来
·伟哉!一穷二白的缅甸佛国金塔善良村民!
·赛万赛谈缅甸新总统新副总统新政府
·上座部佛教与孟缅掸柬寮泰滇
·赛万赛谈缅甸联邦的过去和现在
·缅甸与大东亚共荣圈
·仰光大学与缅甸联邦独立
·“缅甸历次战争的实质”读后感
·灵魂工程师、未来主人翁、天下大同、天下为公
·7-JULY与母校仰大学运传欧
·缅甸德佑续游瑞列匈土
·赛万赛谈缅甸民地武大会
·赛万赛谈国内和平与中缅友好
·赛万赛谈昂山素姬访华
· 掸民盟昆吞武与中共宋涛面谈
·缅甸彬龙会议风波
·缅甸内战受害者的呼声
·21世纪彬龙会议举步艰难
·彬龙会议的石破天惊言行
·21世纪彬龙会议言论集
·缅甸UNFC柳暗花明又一村
·缅甸UNFC建议开三方会议
·让佛光普照大地
·缅甸不愿常任LDC欠发达国家
·对老怨天尤人者只好避而远之
·温教授呼吁正确认识缅甸
·赛万赛谈缅甸全国全面停战协议
·赛万赛谈缅甸议会补选与政局变化
·缅甸华人
·温教授谈Rohingya罗兴亚人
·温教授由七月七日惨案谈起
·赛万赛忆掸邦学友
·与掸族兄弟夜谈掸族掸国掸史
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Burmese case at the UNSC: A Silver Lining

by Kanbawza Win

   ------------------------------------------------------- S.H.A.N. & Burma’s News Published by Burma’s Chinese 貌强 contact & unsubscribe: E-mail: [email protected]

    Website: http://www.boxun.com/hero/Burma'sChinese

   -------------------------------------------------------

   Prof. Kanbawza Win (Dr. B.T.Win):

   Incumbent Dean of Students of AEIOU Programme, Chiangmai University, Thailand. Senior Research Fellow at the European Institute of Asian Studies, Under the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Earlier Consultant to National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. Editorial Consultant, “Asian Tribune.”

   In our BOXUN Burma’s Chinese Website, we have published several articles of him.

   As the Security Council will make its deliberations this week, we publish this article to be something like giving weight to it.

   ------

   For the first time, there is every possibility that Burma will be in the agenda of the United Nations Security Council indicating that the Burmese, as a race and nation are unable and unwilling to settle things peaceably among themselves. The Generals egoism and uncompromising attitude has compelled them to rely on the world body and if need be the UNSC can wield a big stick, to help them solve their own problem. Every peace loving peoples of Burma, especially the pro democracy movement and the ethnic nationalities have placed much hope on the UN. But as often, we forget to ask ourselves of whether the world body ever fulfil the hope of humanity itself. Sometimes we fear that the world leaders are failing the most fundamental test of their own humanity. Under Secretary General Jan Egeland has commented, " Darfur region has become one of the most humanitarian crisis in the world". Burma is just one of the many, where tens of thousands of innocent people have died. The world leaders and head of states have just met in New York in their quest to reform the organization but it seem that it has just taken one step and still a long way to the desired goal of the people of the world.

   Obviously the most urgent issue facing will not be who get a permanent seat on the Security Council, nor even how to build consensus on the potentially catastrophic nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It will be whether innocents will be saved from slaughter of the dictators and political struggles such as Burma, Congo, Darfur and other little known or half forgotten humanitarian crises around the world and who will do the saving? The lives of millions of people are at stake.

   The framer of UN Charter, written more than half a century ago with appalling losses of Word War II fresh in their minds has started best as "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". The sense of excitement and romantic adventure aim was to outlaw aggression and create a system of collective security proscribed interference in the internal affairs of others. Even though the number of conflicts between states diminished, internal conflicts such as those in Burma, Bosnia, Rwanda and the likes has become the crucial issue. The international consensus on the need for protective action across borders has been slow to materialize. UN Secretary General himself has posed this question, "if humanitarian intervention was indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty whom will the world respond to such brutal inhumanity?" This question is now directly applicable to the case of the Burmese crisis.

Functions and Charter of the UNSC

   "A drowning man will catch a last straw" goes a saying, so also the people of Burma have pin much hope on the UN as the only way to their liberation. The romance with the UN started way back in 1993 when the Special Rapporteur Professor Yozo Yokata was appointed as the Chairman on the Commission on Human Rights and submitted her report to the 47th session of the UN General Assembly and since then Burma has been in some way or other in the agenda of the General Assembly with no results. Now that there is some glimmer of hope to be taken by the Security Council one will have to wait and see for it.

   Currently if we were to look at the Security Council members we have Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Romania, United Republic of Tanzania as rotating members in which five countries (Algeria, Benin, Brazil Philippines and Rumania) will end their membership by the end of this year. Then we have the five permanent members (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and USA).Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "Great Power Unanimity", often referred to as the "Veto" power.

   Under the Charter, all members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which member states are obligated under the Charter. The functions and power of the Security Council are as follows:-

   to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

   to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

   to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

   to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;

   to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;

   to call on members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

   to take military action against an aggressor;

   to recommend the admission of new members;

   to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";

   to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

   So in the Burmese case even it were passed by the Security Council we will have to decipher as to what functions it recommend. If it recommends function No.6, the Junta will remain smug as before, however if it recommend function No 7, then democracy and the rule of law is within days to be reached.

R2P Theory

   However, it is still a long way to go, "the responsibility to protect" better known by its acronym as R2P, is resisted by almost every group. The Burmese genocide on its own people especially the ethnic races pales in comparison of what happens in Africa, and, yet some of the African government are more concerned on holding to their power than to have the R2P entrusted upon them. Maybe the European exploitation and the slave trade has left too much of a legacy. The Latin Americans look askance through the prism of two centuries of confliction relations with the US. The proponents of Asian values spearheaded by ASEAN are totally dedicated to the 17th century European belief in sovereignty, while the Americans are wary that it might put the constraints on their capacity to act. Obviously the Arabs and some Muslim countries remember "the crusades" which they found it parallels in the Palestine state.

   This case of R2P became more complicated and complex with the Iraq war when a super power takes unilateral action and yet today its justification of weapons of mass destruction or relations with Al Qaeda could not be found and obviously Osama bin-Laden is laughing in his sleeves. Perhaps, if Uncle Sam has taken action when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds (1988) or suppressed the Shiites (1991) it may have held some water on the truth of R2P. Neither, of it was the last resort when the UN was still engaged in weapon inspection and the sanctions remain in effect. It has miserably failed in the right authority and has greatly tarnished the R2P theory.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场