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]->[Shan-EU: Time for ASEAN and UN to act in tandem]
BURMA-缅甸风云
·丹瑞大将打坐差点走火入魔
·缅甸掸邦第一特区政府(果敢)网站与彭主席访谈
·缅甸丹瑞大将参禅新法:一念代万念
·中風救命法——针刺十指尖与两耳垂放血
·EWOB/AEIOU 的声明
·缅甸僧侣和平示威,丹瑞大将心乱如麻
·缅甸和平示威扩大,丹瑞家人领先逃亡
·反对无理威胁和平集会与游行
·缅甸民族委员会NCUB 对广大士兵的呼吁
·缅甸联邦民族委员会告人民书-3
·SDU’S STATEMENT ON RECENT SPDC’S CRACKDOWN/貌强
·SDU对军政府最近开枪镇压的声明
·缅甸军政府凶杀案将告国际刑事法庭
·恢复掸邦委员会支持缅甸僧侣与民众
·缅侨向联合国与国际机构火急呼救!
·制止缅甸军政府杀害僧侣学生民众
·请求教皇给缅甸人民雪中送炭
·缅甸医生专业医务人员呼吁总罢工
·教皇雪中送炭:为缅甸苦难人民祈祷
·正义要伸张!公道要讨回!
·众土族委员会ENC对缅甸当前局势的声明
·缅甸的华人悲歌
·缅侨恳求中国在安理会勿再投否决票
·全缅学生民主先锋谈缅甸危机
·缅甸律师委员会对甘巴里《缅甸报告》的看法
·缅甸民族委员会NCUB欢迎安理会声明
·缅甸当前急务纵横观
·感谢德国人民支持缅甸和平正义斗争
·缅甸动乱,丹瑞大将有话说
·缅甸众土族国际公开大学AEIOU急需捐款
·缅甸丹瑞大帝狞笑睥睨自豪
·老战友 Prof. Win 的心底话
·毒品枭雄昆沙盖棺论定
·老战友还有话说
·缅甸众土族最欢迎昂山素姬声明
·韩永贵在捷克国会的缅甸问题讲话
·众合法土族政党支持联合国代表代发的昂山素姬声明
·缅甸和平民主阵线10月18日声明
·人权特使会成为甘巴里第二吗?
·与韩永贵漫谈丹瑞昂山素姬走向
·赛万赛笑缅甸军政府杀一儆百
·对掸邦昆沙的另类盖棺论定
·缅甸丹瑞大帝笑评东盟宪章
·缅甸大帝与总理谈东盟来龙去脉
·缅甸众土族委员会拜访印度观察家研究基金会
·缅甸众土族委员会答印度记者问
·苦修我不入地狱谁入地狱的缅甸高僧
·巴瓯民族解放组织支持昂山素姬声明
·缅甸丹瑞大帝2007年12月3日语录
·缅甸民族委员会欢呼美国HR3890号制裁决议
·缅甸问题根源是彬龙精神不见了
·克伦族谴责缅甸种族灭绝内战
·缅甸丹瑞大帝笑骂民主
·缅甸学运领袖波昂觉永垂不朽!
·缅甸联邦土族与少数民族问题
·缅甸各族欢呼联合国原住民权利宣言
·缅甸若开邦人民致函联合国
·纪念缅甸独立节60周年
·缅甸掸族公主痛斥军政府
·缅甸土族哭祭60周年独立节
·古来稀大哥的前列腺毛病
·缅甸僧伽与人民,是鱼水关系
·缅甸僧伽们入世行动了
·钦族阵线谈印度与缅甸军政府
·缅甸民族委员会08年元月24日声明
·缅甸掸族拟加入众土族委员会ENC
·缅甸掸族领袖赛万赛答缅甸文摘问
·由红色高棉想到缅甸军政府
·缅甸掸族的61周年掸邦节
·克伦族掸族领袖游说欧盟6年15次
·平等、民主、发展——救缅甸!
·与赛万赛谈2008年初缅甸局势
·缅甸联邦民族委员会对曼侠被杀害之声明
·人倒下,但曼侠英魂永远活着!
·缅甸革命师生痛失曼侠学兄
·曼侠名列缅甸军政府刺杀单
·谈缅甸国民大会、公投、普选
·美国教授讲缅甸的过去现在未来
·反对缅甸5月公投与2010年普选?
·国际缅甸僧伽总会拜访海牙UNPO
·正视缅甸宪法公投与大选
·缅甸问题以和为贵、利民为本
·缅甸独裁政府——你不打,他不倒!
·缅甸联邦民族委员会有关“宪法公投”声明
·国民党马与民进党谢的选后感言
·温教授评缅甸公投与大选
·NCUB的缅甸反法西斯63周年声明
·达赖喇嘛发表“对全球华人的呼吁”
·“黃金甲--詩篇”
·寒竹点评 “达赖言论”
·缅甸另两大力量对宪法公决的声明
·缅甸在野另七党派反对宪法公决
·给斯宾诺莎的信
·缅甸在野众党派对停战集团的呼吁
·请国际监察员来缅甸察督全民公投
·缅甸钦族委员会第二周年大会声明
·分离运动与自决权问题
·缅甸僧伽新年祈祷民主快来
·Burmese Monks Pray for Democracy
·达赖、缅藏、僧伽喇嘛、背后黑手
·UNPO第九届大会将在欧洲议会召开
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Shan-EU: Time for ASEAN and UN to act in tandem

   ( S.H.A.N & Burma's News Published by Burma's Chinese 貌强 )

   Tuesday, 13 December 2005

   Positive development seldom comes about, particularly in the case of Burma, the ASEAN's problem child. But this might be changing for the inward-looking Burmese military junta is having a second thought and even agreeing to open its door to ASEAN-led initiative to assess its so-called democratisation process. Hopefully, the junta would earnestly comply to its promise and not back down again for fear of real democratisation in all-inclusive term, as called for by the UN and well-meaning, concerned international and regional players.

   Encouraging news, that make many think that the positive change might be in the offing are, first, the US-led UNSC informal briefing; second, the ASEAN's insistence that Burma needs speedy change in its democratisation process; third, Burma's PM Soe Win's agreement or positive response that ASEAN-led team would be allowed to assess the real situation in Burma; fourth, the recent Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the Establishment of the ASEAN Charter, emphasizing the promotion of democracy, human rights and obligations; and fifth, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s commendation of the ASEAN for its call on Myanmar to “expedite” both its political reform efforts and its release of political detainees and the positive response of Burma's decision to accept the envoy.

   While ASEAN's good will intervention is a welcomed move, it should not forget that the core of the problem in Burma is two folds. One is the constitutional crisis or proper arrangement to reflect the desire and aspiration of the people, which stem from conceptual differences between the Burman dominated military regime and non-Burman ethnic nationalities, and the other, the immediate humanitarian crisis, which is threatening to explode into regional and international ramification.

   The woes of Burma today are deeply rooted in the inadequate constitutional drafting of 1947. The Union Constitution was rushed through to completion without reflecting the spirit of Panglong. The ethnic homelands were recognized as constituent states but all power was concentrated in the central government or the government of the Burma Mother state.

   Almost all the non-Burmans and Burman democratic opposition groups are in agreement that the ethnic conflict and reform of social, political and economics cannot be separated from one another. And the only solution and answer is to amend the 1947 Constitution according to Panglong Agreement, where equality, voluntary participation and self-determination, of the constituent states, formed the basis for the Republic of the Union of Burma.

   The successive military dominated regimes, including the ruling SPDC, see Burma as an existing unified nation since the reign of Anawratha thousands of years ago. As such, all other non-Burmans – Shan, Kachin, Chin, Arakanese, Mon, Karen and Karenni - are seen as minorities, which must be controlled and suppressed, lest they break up the country.

   On the other hand, the non-Burmans maintain that the Union of Burma is a newly developed territorial entity, founded by a treaty, the Panglong Agreement, where independent territories merged together on equal basis.

   Given such conceptual differences, the Burmese military goes about with its implementation of protecting “national sovereignty” and “national unity” at all cost. This, in turn, gives way to open conflict resulting in more suppression and gross human rights violations. The intolerance of the military and its inspiration to “racial supremacy”, political domination and control has no limit and could be seen by its refusal to hand over power to the winners of 1990 nation-wide election, the NLD, SNLD and other ethnic-based political parties. The genuine federalism platform, which the NLD and ethnic nationalities embrace, is a threat to its racist mind-set and obsession of domination and control.

   Within Burma political arena there are roughly only two types of conflict. One is the ethnic conflict, which has a vertical nature in contrast to horizontal one, and the other, the ideological conflict played out between entrenched military dictatorship and the democratic aspiration of the people, which has a horizontal effect, covering the whole political spectrum within Burma.

   The ethnic conflict is seen as vertical for the oppression of the non-Burman nationality groups comes only from the dominant, ruling Burmese military clique and not horizontally spread out racial-instigated hatred like one people killing another, such as in Sudan or Rwanda.

   In contrast, the conflict between military dictatorship and democratic aspiration of the people is horizontal, for the desire of democratisation or a change to civilian rule is widespread and among the peoples of Burma.

Humanitarian Intervention

   While humanitarian aids to the needy population must be tackle fast and as comprehensive as possible, it is problematic to fundamentally implement it in a nation-wide scale. To be able to address it at such level, political settlement and peaceful atmosphere must be in place first and there is no other alternative. But this is not to say that piecemeal humanitarian help should be neglected. In contrast, the already existing projects should be expanded to cover more grounds, while conflict resolution or political settlement must go in tandem or hand-in-hand, so that the two processes could complement each other.

   For example, the contested border areas along Burma-Thai border could be a case in point. The Shan, Karenni, Karen and Mon areas along the Thai-Burma border, where around half a million or more refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP) are residing, should be a project where ASEAN and the UN could alleviate the sufferings of the population from hunger, disease, shortage of food and accommodation. Thailand being a signatory of the recent ASEAN Charter shouldn't have problem to let the international humanitarian aids agencies implement the project. Burma, which also recognises the humanitarian need shouldn't object such intervention by claiming the notion of "non-intervention". If it is not in a position to help, it might as well agree formally to it and the ongoing process will evolve automatically, i.e., developing trust and understanding through cooperation with the international agencies, the battered population and last but not least, the resistance armies of the Shan, Karenni, Karen and Mon. In turn, with the healing process and time, peaceful co-existence could be worked out in the long run, with the peoples who are at war with the Burman dominated Burma Army for decades.

   Though the military junta have been sending mixed signals by indicating that it is willing to "dig-in", if pressured too much, the recent acceptance of the ASEAN overture is a welcomed start and all parties concerned should take this hint and "strike while the iron is red". So that a long waited positive outcome might be given a chance to start.

   In concrete terms, UN and ASEAN could take this opportunity to push for more opening of the political arena, leading to reconciliation, restoration of democracy and equality.

   In this respect, the forth-coming UNSC informal briefing should happen soon before the end of the year and if possible, personally conducted or briefed by the UN General Secretary to show the seriousness and commitment for a real positive change in Burma.

   ASEAN's immediate follow-up should take place, sooner than later, to loosen the political tension by first securing the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Hkun Htun Oo and all political prisoners, followed by nation-wide ceasefire and gradual implementation of all-inclusive national convention, with the promise that the military regime would be an integral part of the transitional process and guarantee of blanket amnesty for its human rights violations.

©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