Shan Herald Agency for News |
- Response to ANP Riven by Power Politics as New Government’s Term Approaches
- Response to Khun Htun Oo: ‘Without a Guarantee of Equality, How Can We Work Together?’
- Back to Tell’s Land
- The Heemskerk Declaration
| Response to ANP Riven by Power Politics as New Government’s Term Approaches Posted: 28 Jan 2016 04:42 AM PST  In developed democratic countries, the NLD might have formed a coalition state government, with State Chief Minister position going to ANP and perhaps the financial or interior portfolios going to the NLD. And this will be only fair to the ANP, given that Aung San Suu Kyi's commitment to national reconciliation government formation in states and as well union-level Administrations. Hopefully, the NLD will take the ANP's desire and aspiration into account for the sake of ethnic reconciliation. | ||
| Response to Khun Htun Oo: ‘Without a Guarantee of Equality, How Can We Work Together?’ Posted: 28 Jan 2016 02:58 AM PST  The point here is to emphasize that the Tai (Shan) states were ruled by their respective Saohpas, while in the same vein, the Palaung, Danu, Pa-O and even Wa, although not in the Federated Shan States at that time, were administered by their own kind. Except that they have to pay tax to their colonial master, all these ethnic territories were left alone to govern themselves on their own. A far cry from the Bamar military regimes' military occupation, suppression and exploitation of the ethnic homelands, even when one compare it to the British colonial power. So when a question is asked, what the Bamar could do with the Dawei and Beik tribes, the answer is the Bamar state could decentralize its administration like the Federated Shan States. It is quite simple. It is entirely up to the Bamar to decentralize its administration units the way it sees fit. But not giving, upgrading or empowering the new administrative unit to the level of Division or Region in par with the 7 ethnic states. Well informed ethnic leaders argued but fallen on deaf ears, that if the Bamar could diversified their single territory into 7 Divisions/Regions, the Shan could as well upgrade the 33 Federated Shan States of the colonial days into 33 Divisions or Regions also, each having a say or vote in the national assembly or parliament. What the Bamar military and political class are advocating and thrusting down the ethnic nationalities' throat now is: "Since we have the population majority, we will upgrade our Burma Proper into 7 Divisions/Regions that will have the level as the 7 ethnic states. You all have to live with it, whether you like it or not." The case in point is fairness in a national state-based federalism. The Bamar cannot have 7 constituent units as one of the ethnic nationalities, even they like to be aloof of the identity label and insert domination on other ethnic groups, while the others only have one unit each.. Of course, the Bamar could now argue that the federal union should be territory-based than national state-based, for it will be fairer for sub-ethnic groups within each of the states and divisions. As all have already agreed that it should be according to our unique historical background and appropriate system in forming a genuine federal union, we only need to go back on our historical treaty and documents and base our deliberation in overcoming the constitutional crisis, that has existed since Independence. These historical treaty and documents are none other than the 1947 Panglong Agreement, 1948 Union of Burma Constitution, and 1961 Shan Federal Proposal that was endorsed by all ethnic nationalities in Taunggyi, Shan State. It is time to revisit these historical documents and facts, if informed and fair formation of a federal system of governance is to earnestly pursued. | ||
| Posted: 27 Jan 2016 11:01 PM PST Day Two. Saturday, 16 January 2016 The more I know, the less I understand All the things I'd figured out I have to learn again (Don Henley) Murten, where we are putting up, is a German majority town in the French majority canton (state). Every place we visit, signs are written in 3 languages: German, French and English. Why, it even has a French name, Morat (pronounced Moha, so I'm told). Nationwide, German is spoken by 63.7% of the population, French 20.3%, Italian 6.5% and Romansch (which descends from Latin used by the Romans) 0.9%. So why don't they make German the official language, like the Burmese government has done with the Burmese language? I put this question to Mr Roland Salisberg, head of the Peace Policy Section of the Foreign Ministry, who has come to receive us at the lunch reception. "The answer is simple: forcing German to be used by all won't help with our national unity," he says. "It may, on the contrary, even serve to divide us, and pull us apart."
So, why don't the Swiss Germans join their cousins in Austria and Germany to form a bigger nation instead? (What's on my mind when I ask this question? Probably a vague thought that Shans, who call themselves Tai, have also cousins in Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and even China.) "It would be difficult for us to enjoy the same rights as we do now if we are united with these countries, as Switzerland is geographically partitioned from them." Murten, where we had arrived by bus from Geneva at noon, is 30.9 km from Bern, the country's administrative capital, a 24 minute drive away. The whole town is quiet, as if deserted. (It is Saturday) Few people are seen in the streets. During the 5 days we are there, I don't even remember seeing the sun. And it is cold, so cold I have to change into a thick pair of socks, pull down my woolen cap so it covers both my nose (and ears but not my eyes), when I'm outside. But inside the buildings, there is heating, so that you are warm and, at times, even stuffy. As night falls at 18:00, the whole town comes to life. We learn later that they are holding a 10-day light festival, which began 3 days ago. They even float lighted receptacles in the town's Morat Lake, 8.2 km x 2.8 km, one of the more than 100 lakes in the country, just like the Loi Krathong festival in Thailand. By SAI KHUENSAI / Director of Pyidaungsu Institute and Founder of Shan Herald Agency for News (S.H.A.N) All views expressed are the author's own. | ||
| Posted: 27 Jan 2016 09:09 PM PST In a global meeting small scale farmers of cannabis, coca and opium from 14 countries discussed their contribution to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS). The UNGASS will discuss all aspects of global drug control policies, including the worldwide ban on the cultivation of coca, poppy and cannabis, an issue the Global Farmers Forum demands that their voices be heard and taken into account.
22 January 2016, Heemskerk, Netherlands Today in a meeting in The Netherlands, small scale farmers of cannabis, coca and opium from 14 countries* discussed their contribution to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS), to be held in New York from 19 to 21 April 2016. The UNGASS will discuss all aspects of global drug control policies, including the worldwide ban on the cultivation of coca, poppy and cannabis, an issue the Global Farmers Forum demands that their voices be heard and taken into account. Considering:
Conclusions1. Forced eradication – chemical, biological, manual or any other form – of crops produced by small farmers is contrary to human rights, causes diverse forms of conflict, expands countries' agricultural frontier, leads to environmental degradation, causes food insecurity and destroys rural economic survival strategies. It aggravates social problems – as well as problems related to health and internal security -‐-‐ increases poverty, leads to displacement of affected populations, delegitimizes state institutions, militarizes local communities and is a form of undemocratic intervention, forcing those impacted to seek survival strategies in other informal or illicit economic activities and in some cases pushes people to take more radical positions. Finally, forced eradication is counterproductive with regards to sustainable development. 2. The inclusion of the three plants in the international treaties impedes the recognition of both traditional, and modern uses** and the ability to obtain them legally. Not all people have access to medicinal uses and the market is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. In some countries, laws recognize traditional and medicinal uses. Nutritional uses and other forms of industrialization of these plants have not been widely promoted, despite the fact that there are many examples of community and institutional initiatives that demonstrates the benefits of such use. Recreational use of these plants is completely prohibited even as an increasing number of countries seek to regulate these markets. Producers and users and their organizations, communities and leaders continue to be stigmatized, criminalized and incarcerated. 3. Rural development strategies must promote small-‐scale agriculture. Most participants in the Farmers Forum have not been beneficiaries of Alternative Development or other forms of assistance. Those who have had experiences with Alternative Development programmes affirm that these have largely failed to improve the livelihood of affected communities. The main problems have been the lack of community involvement in the design, planning and execution of the interventions; short-‐term time-‐frames; inadequate technical assistance; foments corruption and funding does not reach the intended beneficiaries; failure to take into account a gender perspective; the use of alternative crops negatively impact the environment and do not promote food sovereignty but focuses on mono-‐cropping, fostering land grabbing for big companies, and a lack of sustained access to land, markets and technologies. The conditioning of development assistance on prior eradication leaves people without sources of income, pushing people back into illicit crop cultivation. Present Alternative Development programs do not envisage the cultivation for licit purposes. 4. The prohibition of coca, cannabis and opium poppy generates conflicts, as the people that grow them are criminalized, their human and cultural rights are violated, they are discriminated against and legally prosecuted. The different levels of conflict that exist have their origins in both drug control policies and the drugs market itself. Conflicts and violence are caused by the interventions of state authorities (police and armed forces), through eradication acts or other interventions; the presence of armed groups and internal wars; ethnical divisions and territorial and border disputes; access to and control of land; access to water and other natural resources/common goods; corruption; migration and displacement; the overload of the judicial system; the illegal trade in arms and precursors and illicit logging; unemployment, amongst others. Recommendations1. We reject prohibition and the war on drugs. 2. We demand the removal of coca, cannabis and opium poppy from the lists and articles in the 1961 UN Single Convention and the 1988 Convention. No plant should be a controlled drug under the UN Conventions or national legislation. We claim the right to cultivation for traditional and modern uses of these plants. 3. We call for the elimination of all forms of non‐voluntary eradication. 4. We demand that all affected communities should be involved in all stages of drug policies and development, from the design to its implementation, monitoring and evaluation. 5. In case crop reduction is desirable and feasible it needs to be gradual and reached in dialogue and agreement with the affected communities, based on mutual respect and confidence. 6. The conditioning of development assistance on prior eradication is unacceptable. The proper sequencing of development interventions is fundamental to its success. 7. Integrated sustainable development should be the main intervention for crop producing communities. Such development should promote and protect the livelihoods of small scale farmers and rural workers, and should guarantee access to and control over land and common goods. 8. The state and its institutions will need to assume responsibility to address the needs of the communities involved in cultivation of coca, cannabis and opium poppy. 9. We demand that the farmers and their families involved in the cultivation of coca, cannabis and opium should not be prosecuted by criminal law, or discriminated against. 10. Coca, cannabis and opium poppy and their use should not be criminalized. 11. The expansion of licit markets of coca, cannabis and opium poppy should become part of development strategies. 12. We support the peace process in Colombia and Myanmar, which should be inclusive. * Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Spain, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jamaica, Morocco, Mexico, Myanmar, Paraguay, Peru, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and South Africa. ** Traditional use understood as ceremonial, religious, traditional medicinal. Modern is recreational, alimentary, and self-medication. |
| 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., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.