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
·中风要三小时内急救!
·KNU苏沙吉七访西班牙
·缅甸果敢特区被攻陷了!
·强烈谴责缅甸军政府对果敢人民的暴行!
·战争是缅甸军政府特意发动的!
·缅甸果敢,君知多少?
·缅甸佤邦联军枕戈待旦决战
·果敢已沦陷,下个受害邦该谁?
·赛万赛与貌强谈大缅族主义的民族压迫
·果敢彭家声与伊洛瓦底记者的谈话
·缅甸众土族以小人之心度君子之腹?
·来电为缅官白所成喊冤平反
·缅甸僧伽与学生要求军政府停止民族压迫
·缅甸果敢沦陷区昨晚的来电
·联合国的人权宣言,缅甸不用遵守?
·华夏人道主义救援队缅北来电实录
·缅甸反对势力在2010年大选前的动态
·缅甸反对党派反对2010年伪大选的联合声明
·缅甸新宪法判众土族死刑
·东帝汶总统对缅甸与联合国的疾呼
·旅美缅甸民主力量反对2010年大选
·看昂山素姬缅甸民盟如何进退
·速开缅甸三方会议
·缅甸将军们与众土族奇谋对奇阵
·缅甸十月29日的奇谋奇阵棋盘
·缅甸将军们这么快立地成佛
·赛万赛谈山姆叔叔访问缅甸
·由丹瑞大将斯里兰卡取经说起
·蘑菇——植物肉!上帝食品!
·脂肪肝如何自疗自养?
·缅甸布朗族革命47周年声明
·缅甸民族民主阵线NDF呼吁军政府士兵起义
·温教授针砭缅甸高等教育
·缅甸军政府管辖区鸦片种植激增
·由缅甸布朗毒品报告谈起
·祝贺缅甸克伦族革命61周年
·缅甸众土族要民主联邦制
·缅甸NDF谴责军政府的军事胁迫恫吓
·缅甸军政府与众土族谈谈打打
·缅甸反对派2010年选战观
·杨奎松谈新中国的贫富与等级制度
·由阿利教谈到缅甸中国佛教
·缅甸局势与NDF七中大会
·仰光爆炸案的背后阴谋
·姚色克在掸邦反抗日讲话
·悠游土耳其12日
·斯德哥尔摩古城一日游
·中外史前巨石阵
·瑞典古城与郭沫若
·和瑞典学者谈社会主义
·清帝顺治与缅王丹瑞
·千万勿忘第一敌人!!!
·昂山素姬讲话一石激千浪
·掸邦欢迎昂山素姬的21世纪彬龙会议
·缅甸众土族欢庆昂山素姬获释公告
·昂山素姬对新闻工作者讲话
·昂山素姬答伊江编辑问
·昂山素姬获释近况略记
·缅甸民主同盟2010-1号战果报告
·昂山素姬答缅甸民主之声问
·中缅边境缅甸三特区风紧
·缅甸好汉的小国群英宴
·缅甸拟大打内战与滥印万元钞票
·缅甸正渡黎明前的黑夜
·三高外,提防类胱氨酸过高!
·缅甸三大力量摆开攻守阵势
·昂山素姬前途充满黑色13日
·中缅边区毒品业娱乐业及边贸
·中药虫草
·改革的鐘聲正在響起
·好人好事好国度永远值得热恋
·澳洲坚果(夏威夷果)Macadamia
·KNU对缅甸内比都炸弹爆炸之声明
·又一亲密战友去向马克思哭诉
·又一亲密战友去向马克思哭诉
·柏林的马克思坐着恩克斯站着
·缅甸国防军的种族奸杀灭绝政策
·缅甸国防军的种族奸杀灭绝政策
·昂山素姬呼吁尽快停火和谈的公开信
·缅甸联邦缅族与非缅族历史恩怨宿仇
·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
[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