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
·掸邦掸族断臂将军召吞英
·缅甸种族冲突能政治解决吗?
·缅甸是世界数二数三贪腐穷困国
·缅甸是世界数二数三贪腐穷困国
·缅甸的和平曙光
·93岁缅甸作家达贡达雅呼吁国内和平
·何谓和平?何谓停火?如何和谈?
·昂山素姬 Reith 第一讲:自由
·昂山素姬道高一尺,将军们魔高一丈
·昂山素姬边妥协边缓进
·缅甸三方对话才能全面和解
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第三讲
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 自由第四讲
·缅甸众族并肩共和蓝图
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第五讲
·缅族需改唯我独尊心态
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第六讲
·抛弃彬龙协议将激发缅甸各族自决
·联邦众族团结委员会覆函缅甸联邦政府
·缅甸宗教自由吗?
·昂山素姬对中国缅甸伊江建坝的意见书
·昂山素姬 BBC Reith 第七讲
·缅甸掸邦众族关心狱中68岁领袖昆吞武
·缅甸要片面或全盘和解?
·昂山素姬BBC Reith 第八讲
·缅甸新政府似无意改革或和解
·缅甸乱世出英雄?
·安息吧!赛森尊好战友!好兄弟!
·缅甸要真正联邦制或大缅族独裁制?
·缅甸克钦邦克钦族反对中国支持缅甸政府
·缅甸释放政治犯才能加速民主进程
·近代中国缅甸恩怨
·缅甸政府对昂山素姬与非缅族众原住民的策略
·勿忘缅甸半世纪内战难民与狱中仟捌政治犯
·昂山素姬与丹麦师生谈领袖谈民主运动
·钦族老革命谈昂山素姬与缅甸政府
·国际缅甸民族院奠基会反对民盟参加政府补选
·对昂山素姬与民盟参加政府补选面面观
·非缅族众原住民委员会ENC欢迎民盟NLD重新注册
·缅甸民主力量FDB对民盟注册与补选发表声明
·昂山素姬允诺兼顾民主与各族平等
·旅加缅甸9团体支持民盟注册与补选
·缅甸改革风吹草低见牛羊?
·缅共呼吁人民对中美勿一边倒
·美国回亚洲开辟新冷战
·美国回亚洲开辟新冷战
·缅甸左拥中国右抱美国
·缅甸左拥中国右抱美国
·非缅族众政党向美国国务卿请愿
·韩永贵与昂山素姬的杠杆作用
·恢复四大功能就永離癌症
·恢复四大功能就永離癌症
·温家宝在世界未来能源峰会上的讲话
·勿背叛国父昂山理念!
·勿背叛国父昂山理念!
·赛万赛谈缅甸2012年初局势
·温教授谈缅甸独立后与现在
·中国改革须走出“转型陷阱”
·恢复四大功能就永離癌症
·非缅族政党对第二彬龙会议的看法
·昂山素姬在克钦邦重提彬龙精神
·缅甸华族2012年生活守则
·缅甸联邦人民要各族平等、民主共和!
·缅甸彭家声的果敢军也愿和解
·缅甸学运领袖对登盛国会发言的反应
·缅甸联邦有望持久和平吗?
·2012年三八妇女节感言
·赛万赛点评登盛总统的和平三步走
·Khin Ohnmar 剥缅甸伪平民政府洋葱
·昂山素姬外泄的竞选录音
·缅甸人民大谈民主
·广州人物周刊拜访昂山素姬
·昂山素姬竞选缅文原稿
·土司公主3月2日的神圣呼吁
·缅甸官方大谈为国为民反贪反橡皮图章
·缅甸补选点滴趣闻
·昂山素姬为何坚信登盛总统诚意改革
·昂山素姬民盟胜了不骄傲也不辱人
·少食+多菜少荤+快乐+早睡早起 =长寿
·未来吃什么?
·腦退化症
·缅甸国内外形势说变就变?
·缅甸掸族领袖如何看昂山素姬和登盛政府
·独裁者守望台对“新缅甸”的评价
·赛万赛对缅甸局势是否太乐观?
·掸公主 Sao Noan Oo 对英国有话说
·佤邦联合军保家卫邦不怕空袭
·匈牙利布达佩斯一日游
·捷克布拉格一日游
·缅军与克钦军交火不断 中国参与斡旋
·赠神州红尘众生的锵锵劝世良言
·忆10年前云南8日游
·最美教师张丽莉与日日向善的中国人民
·最美司机48岁吴斌
·普世價值的中國先知——方励之
·谈白岩松与昂山素姬为民请命
·悼六四硬汉李旺阳被“自杀”
·温教授貌强谈若开宗教种族暴乱
·谈缅甸古今大小民族主义
·1962年缅甸学生七七惨案
·缅甸前国防总长谈罗兴迦人来龙去脉
[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