Shan Herald Agency for News |
| The curse of Shan unity/disunity Posted: 22 Apr 2014 04:51 AM PDT  Last 9 April, 3,663 Shan monks together with elders from 52 townships in Shan State sent a signed appeal to 4 major Shan movements – 2 of which are political parties and the other 2 armed groups – urging them to merge into one single party and one single army.Two other demands are that all 4 share one single political goal and uphold one single basic law. "Non-compliance will mean non-support from us," it warns. This unwanted historic heritage has been commented by several scholars, both Shan and non-Shan, among whom was Sir James Geoge Scott, former Commissioner of Shan States. The Shans, he wrote, possess "the national characteristic of a liking for small communities, in confederation with others of their race, but steadily averse to subordination to one central power, which would have given them the stability and the conquering force which might have made them masters of all Indo-China, to say nothing of possibly the hegemony of China itself. The Burmese have been given the reputation of having devised the sagacious policy of splitting up the Shan States, and so ruling them with ease, but the truth is that they would have had much more difficulty in persuading the people to submit to the rule of one or two chiefs of greatly extended territories."  Surkhanfa, 1291-1364 (Portrait: Harthai) Since then, everything has been downhill for the Shans. No wonder to many, the Shans appear to be through, finished. The old ones are sick and the young ones are weaklings. As a result, the wolves and the buzzards are coming, each for a piece of its own. And in the end, nothing will be left for the Shans. It would certainly be a sad story, because the Shans will be sinking within sight of their own next of kin: Laotian and Thais, who are independent, together with Ahoms, Dai, Zhuang, Yi and Tai who are dependents in India, China and Vietnam. And, inevitably, with the Shans' demise, they would be next in line. However, there is still one hope and that is the Committee for Shan State Unity (CSSU) formed last year by the said four movements with the lofty aim to speak in one voice with the country's rulers. Their goal is to achieve the Right of Self Determination, meaning not independence as dreaded by their Burman masters, but having its own government, legislature and judiciary within a federal union. Like Scott said, even without outsiders' machinations, the job will be a full time one. But if successful, it will be for the good of everyone, both Shan and non-Shan alike. Indeed, what good has the Divide and Rule policy of successive Burmese governments brought, except war and worsening poverty? SHAN therefore hopes everyone concerned, at least for one's own sake, will chip in and help Shans restore their unity that has shunned them for so long. Give unity a chance. |
| How the current Ceasefire Talks in Myanmar can bring about National Reconciliation? Posted: 22 Apr 2014 04:49 AM PDT Negotiation for the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in Myanmar has reached a point where civil society organisations must take an active and robust role for finding new solutions to deep-rooted Myanmar's armed conflict. The latest meeting between Armed Ethnic Organisations' Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT) and the government's Union Peacemaking Work Committee (UPWC) from 9 to 10 March 2014 at Myanmar's Peace Centre in Yangon, discussed both sides' proposals for a draft Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. Both sides expressed their satisfaction on the progress. Speculations among close observers indicated that the Agreement could be signed before the 1st August 2014, if everything goes well as planned.  Ceasefire agreements between armed ethnic groups and the Burma army or the Tatmadaw are nothing new. In the past, the Tatmadaw made a number of ceasefire deals with various armed ethnic groups but they have failed to address the root-cause of the ethnic conflict. Between 1989 and 1999, fifteen armed ethnic groups signed ceasefire deals with the Tatmadaw. In April 2009, all ceasefire groups were ordered to transform into Border Guard Forces (BGFs) as stipulated in the 2008 constitution. The scheme entailed that all armed ethnic groups entered ceasefire agreements to come under the partial control of the Tatmadaw. On the 1st September 2010, the government declared that all ceasefire agreements were invalid because none of the major ceasefire groups agreed to become BGFs. The Tatmadaw then re-newed its military pressure on the ethnic groups. On 18 August 2011, the reformist government, led by President Thein Sein announced its desire to find new solutions to the country's more than 60 years old civil war and has resumed negotiations with armed ethnic groups. At present, 14 major armed ethnic groups have signed ceasefire agreements with the government, but those agreements appear to be no more than a short-term fix that offers economic incentive through development projects. None of those agreements include concrete plan for the political dialogue to address the underlying political, economic and social cause of the on-going armed conflict. Currently most armed ethnic groups have been collectively negotiating with the government for the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement that obliges the government committing to peace and political dialogues. The big question is will the ceasefire agreement lead to see the ending of the more than six decades civil war and how will a long lasting peace be achieved. Sustaining peace in Myanmar needs genuine political wills on all sides including the government, the Tatmadaw, ethnic armies, Burman and non-Burman political parties, civil society organisations, and concerned citizens. National reconciliation will only be meaningful if all key stakeholders are able to actively participate and make contribution at every level of the peace process. Ceasefire agreement without political dialogues taking place will only increase the risk of returning to armed conflict. In the past, the government seemed to see ethnic groups' armed struggle for their political freedom as solely legal issue. The government tended to view the problem of armed conflicts within a purely legal framework- a position which challenged the legitimacy of non-state actors. This approach explained the government's refusal to enter genuine political dialogue with armed ethnic groups and as well as its insistence on disarmament or turning the ethic armies into subordinate national forces or Border Guard Forces. The reluctance on the part of the government to enter political dialogue has created a deep sense of distrust among armed ethnic groups. For ethnic groups, the goal of political dialogue is to achieve equality as member states in the Union of Myanmar, in which they see lacking equality since the beginning of its formation. There are real challenging issues such as federalism, security reform, the return of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and refugees who are largely members of ethnic minority groups with many living in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, and addressing human rights and community grievances. Some of these issues and their concepts have never been publicly contested. Federalism, for instant, is viewed by the Tatmadaw as fragmentation and lacking unity among different ethnic groups. For ethnic groups, federalism is about relationships and power sharing between the Central Government and the States; self-governance to manage their political, cultural, economic, financial and social matters, and those pertaining to economic development. More importantly, they have always seen federalism is the only solution to Myanmar's ethnic conflict. Another major challenge will be implementing security reforms involving formation of a federal army that all sides agree to, gradual demilitarization as the situation improved and reintegration of ex-combatants into the community. The Tatmadaw has neither shown its intension to accept members of armed ethnic groups equally as its own army nor willingness to reform the security institution. Instead, it has mounted military pressure on some ethnic groups. Recently, the army launched a major offensive again the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) and deployed more than 1,000 of its troops in the areas under the KIO control in Southern Kachin State and Northern Shan State at the same time as the KIO's delegation team was attending the negotiation meeting for the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in Yangon. The army reasoned its military action was only to protect national census enumerators in those areas. As a result of the offensive, more than 3,000 local population was displaced from their homes. This kind of Tatmadaw's behaviour did not help the Ceasefire negotiation and severely damaged confidence-building measures. Participation of civil society organizations and concerned citizens is crucial for peace making and building as shown in other countries' experiences. When community based organizations and concerned citizens take matters into their hands, in other words take initiatives and ownership of the peace building at local level, peace work tends to work better and more effectively. The Committee of Concerned Citizens' peace initiatives to mediate the Naxalites (Maoist rebels) and the Indian Government in Andhra Pradesh State in India, Dekha Ibrahim Abdi of Kenya (or Somalia) and the Shari'ah Courts' contribution to dispute resolution in Mindanao of the Philippines are some obvious examples how civil organizations and concerned citizens can significantly contribute to peace making and building. Civil society actors such as human rights advocates, student activists, religious community, the media and women organizations have been a vital force in the movements of democratization and have the potential to play a crucial role in national reconciliation and peace building. Historically, civil society in Myanmar has been weakened and lacked the ability to influence at decision making level. But, as Myanmar's political reform has opened up some public space and civil society has speedily re-emerged. Many civil society organizations work closely with the grassroots on the most sensitive public issues and they have proven to be effective in mobilising people, raising public awareness, help shaping public opinions and promoting actions. They can certainly help citizens to become more familiar with the terms and concepts of the Peace Agreement and provide vital links in the transition to and sustainability of post-war democracy. Civil society actors can help advance the notion that that national peace-making is intimately related to everyday life of all citizens. When civil society actors take pro-active role in peace building they also become an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure the government upholds its commitment to achieve genuine national reconciliation. Trust building will requires improving governance. More than sixty years of civil war have taken a severe toll on administrative institutions which will need reform and strengthening to meet the needs and challenges of peace building. Political dialogues must be unconditional and include systematically and robustly dealing with human rights violations. Ceasefire agreements and peace accords alone will not necessarily bring about national reconciliation unless civil society organisations and concerned citizens are able to actively participate in the decision making and strategic planning for the peace process. However, not all civil society organisations will necessarily make positive contribution to the peace process. Potential spoilers to the peace process will always take the advantage of the fragile political situation and they need to be weeded out of the process. So far, both the government and armed ethnic groups have only selectively or cautiously related to civil society initiatives, thus failing to capitalise on existing potential for conflict resolutions. Participation of women, as victims of the violent conflicts, in the peace process is also crucial to help prevent future violence and conflicts. To ensure the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement is fruitful and bring about true National Reconciliation, civil society actors from all sectors must be empowered and invited to take more pro-active role in the peace process. (Sai Oo is a researcher at Pyidaungsu Institute for Peace and Dialogue. He holds a PhD in Community Education and Civil Society from University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). Opinions here expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent the Institute.) |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Shan Herald Agency for News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.