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
·带林老师悠游阿姆斯特丹
·与林老师对饮茅台酒
·同林老师追忆中国援缅远征军
·与林老师谈昂山与吴素:
·漫谈缅甸“姓氏”: 德钦、貌、哥、吴、玛、杜
·缅甸政坛恩仇录
·环行荷兰8省,悠游Leeuwarden半日
·貌强带两千金悠游云南
·貌强: 回故乡
·Bush! 放下你的皮鞭与屠刀!
·缅甸各族人民的不懈斗争
·貌强:Free All Political Prisoners and Stop Killing Ethnic People!
·释放政治犯!停杀原住民!
·貌强:TOTAL A ETE TOTALEMENT REJETE
·貌强:以民主、人权、自决权为缅甸建国与办学基石
·貌强:'TOTAL was Totally Rejected'
·貌强补充一二,以飨欧洲华报读者
·貌强:Taiwan People Demand :
·台湾人民要求缅甸军政府:
·缅甸众土族力量2006年现状
·貌强:The situation of Burma’s Ethnic Nationalities in 2006
·貌强:Debts of blood Must Be Paid in Blood!
·貌强: 血债要血还!
·貌强:Keep Burma's Seat Vacant
·“缅甸文摘”社论:敬请空置缅甸席位
·貌强:都灵市缅甸策略研讨会
·貌强:Strategic Consultation on Burma in Turin
·貌强:Curent SPDC Offensive and our KNU Counter-attack
·缅甸军政府的攻势与我族我军的反击
·克伦族联盟主席在56届克伦族烈士节的讲话
·貌强:KNU President's Address on 56th Anniversary of Martyrs' Day
·貌强:第八届缅甸联邦民族委员会已选出
·钦民族战线代表团访问旅欧钦族社区
·缅甸各族青年联合行动团之声明
·有关国际法内的自决权
·貌强:UNPO’s Symposium on the Right to Self-determination in International Law
·对“国际法内的自决权”的我见
·Busdachin’s Speech on “Self-Determination Right in International Law”
·UNPO: UN Human Rights Council Briefed on Human Rights in Myanmar
·联合国文告:缅甸悲惨现状
·貌强:Busdachin’s Speech to VIII UNPO GA in Taiwan
·Why Waste Time and Procrastinate?
·UNPO秘书长在台北讲话
·2006年底缅甸联邦实况
·BURMA.UNPO: The Situation in Burma
·缅甸众土著在台北UNPO大会的声明
·漫谈钦族的过去与现在
·Burmese Junta Achieves 2 Things at One Stroke
·缅中边界军演一箭双雕
·UNPO: "Democracy Promotion: The European Way"
·促进民主的欧洲道路
·波米亚将军的革命一生
·貌强:Bo Mya’s Revolutional Life
·不干涉他国内政的中国
·貌强:Our Congratulations to Dr. Lian Hmung Sakhong
·廉萨空博士荣获“2007年马丁路德金奖”
·缅甸联邦民族联合政府成立16周年纪念文告
·廉萨空博士在马丁路德金奖授奖会上的讲话
·Lian Sakhong's Martin Luther King Prize Acceptance Lecture
·追忆1967年缅甸排华暴行
· Forum of Burmese in Europe 28-Jan-2007
·欧盟缅甸人论坛07年元月28日召开
·舌战独立掸国领袖 Hso Khan Pha
·缅甸钦区钦族钦新闻-1
·缅甸革命力量的第六次策略协商会议通报
·缅甸议会民主党致函中国外长
·缅甸民族委员会NCUB开设伦敦办公室
·2007年三八妇女节感言
·貌强:CNF Peace-Talks with the Burma’s Junta
·缅甸钦民族战线CNF与军政府和谈
·2007年春季缅甸局势
·欧盟东盟2007年会议对缅甸既援助也不满
·貌强:KACHINS PROTEST BURMA'S JUNTA BARBARISM
·克钦人民抗议缅甸政府军的兽行
·从缅甸建军节想起
·缅军以强奸土族妻女为战争手段
·貌强:Burma Rape Report Exposes Brutal Army
·KNU苏沙吉准将谈克伦族革命
·Saw Hsar Gay Talks about Karen History & KNU Revolution
·貌强苏沙吉准将续谈克伦革命(1)
·印度关闭缅甸Mizzima新闻社
·Mizzima News Office sealed off by Democratic India
·AEIOU 2008学年招生通告
·糖尿病民间验方
·心腦血管病的預防
·漫谈印欧语系
·2007年缅甸国内外微妙变化
·貌强:Harn Yawnghwe, EU, USA and Burma’s Junta
·从“Honsawatoi”亡国250年谈起
·缅甸孟族纪念“Hongsawatoi ”亡国250周年
·温教授问美国为何不出手
·缅甸封杀“缅甸华商商会”
·缅甸当局封杀百年华商社团
·貌强:Act Now or Regret Later with the Unholy Alliance
·缅甸已找台阶解除对华商社团的封杀
·论缅甸吴努政府与台湾阿扁政府
·缅甸众土族再三赴美寻求支持
·由印尼华人要人权民族权想起
·缅甸世道乱——坏人有好报
·社会主义“居者有其屋”
·丹瑞大将打坐差点走火入魔
[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