Friday, July 15, 2016

Shan Herald Agency for News

Shan Herald Agency for News

Reading Suu Kyi's mindset on the eve of Mai Ja Yang ethnic leadership summit

Posted: 15 Jul 2016 06:42 AM PDT

As the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) leadership prepares to leave for Mai Ja Yang, making stopovers in Rangoon and Naypyitaw to meet National Reconciliation and Peace Center (NRPC) and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, it becomes apparent that it must have done quite a lot of research and mind-reading on the government leader, so that appropriate answers and counter proposals could be formulated.

First, let us look at Suu Kyi's mindset, particularly on what she might be striving at to achieve success in her initiative of 21 Century Panglong Conference or Convention (21CPC), which her predecessor started out as Union Peace Conference (UPC) last February.

According to the meeting between Suu Kyi and the Peace Process Steering Team (PPST) which represented  the 8 Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) that signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) late last year, she elaborated issues that were important to the peace process as follows:

·         No hidden agenda in trying to establish a real federal democracy for all the people
·         Real political will and cooperation of all the ethnic people
·         To overcome angst through trust anchored in success and achievement of peace
·         All precious things are not easy to achieve
·         70 years of war is far too long
·         There would be no development without peace, peace must be sought through unity in diversity, and the need to protect political legacy for the next generation
·         Participants' ability and bravery needed to do the duty
·         Different generations – young and old - should have responsibility and a sense of duty
·         To nurture the mentality of "give" (rather than "take"), to the country
·         Her intention to listen more than to make policy clarification
·         Harmony could create peace
·         In order to be successful, all-inclusiveness and principled participation in the convention are necessary
·         All should discuss if it should be called UPC, 21CPC, 2nd or 3rd Panglong
·         Panglong Spirit more important than Agreement, as speedy, common independence from the British was achieved through "unity in diversity" of Panglong Spirit
·         Panglong Agreement stated equality accepted without question, but secession issue must be addressed although she is not for secession, and whether it is needed to be included in the cornerstone of union-building
·         Federalism is integration and not disintegration, according to the academics and good for all the people and ethnic groups
·         In good functioning federal union, there is no secession
·         Accepts equality but ethnic rights of self-determination needs to be discussed in details;
·         To build strong federal union through Panglong Spirit
·         Wants to hear the ethnic nationalities' aim and object rather than clarification of her own policy and not sticking dogmatically to it
·         Constitutional amendment would be through the parliament.

Of all the details mentioned, the most important is the very concept of the country's genesis, emergence or formation, which is differently interpreted by the Bamar political class, including Bamar military, and the ethnic nationalities.

The Bamar rightly or wrongly believed that they have the right to inherit the British colonial master's mantle, when Burma way granted the independence, for the non-Bamar territories were owned by the Bamar ancient kings, while the non-Bamar ethnic nationalities are of the opinion that the Union of Burma is a newly formed political entity, due to the virtue of 1947 Panglong Agreement between them and the Bamar State, then known as Burma Proper or Ministerial Burma.

The vocabulary of "Panglong Agreement, Promises and Spirit"

If we talk about Panglong Spirit, it is adamant that we need to discuss the emergence of its agreement and its pledges, which comes with it. Let us go briefly on what these are all about.

The Panglong Agreement, as we all know, is the 9 point treaty signed between Burma, the Federated Shan States (which later became the Shan State), the Chin Hills (which became the Chin State) and the Kachin Hills (which became the Kachin State), a pact between 4 equal partners.

The gist of it was full autonomy in internal affairs, financial autonomy, human rights and democracy for the ethnic nationalities.

Panglong Promises include the right to secede if and when the signatories choose, equal status and
joint responsibility for common subjects such as foreign affairs, defence and coinage and currency.
It happened during the 4-day negotiations in Panglong, 8-11 February 1947, the said demands were made by the Joint Chin-Kachin-Shan Committee, officially dubbed Supreme Council of the United Hill Peoples (SCOUHP).

Gen Aung San, representative of the then interim Burmese government, reportedly had accepted all in principle but requested that they be included in the Union constitution to be a drafted by the upcoming Constituent Assembly instead. His solemn word of honour thus became known as the promises of Panglong.

The Panglong Spirit, however seems to mean, judging by what the Burmese leaders have repeatedly said, the much-vaunted Three National Causes (Non-disintegration of the Union, Non-disintegration of National Solidarity, and the Perpetuation of National Sovereignty) to be their interpretation. To the non-Burmans, this summing-up means the ethnic nationalities have to live under Burmese domination as second class citizens whether they like it or not. Their own interpretation is equal status, sense of joint ownership and sense of joint responsibility, which has never been realized, let alone agreed upon. (Source: SHAN 12 February 2016)

Panglong Spirit more important

According to Suu Kyi, Panglong Spirit is more important than agreement, which implies that Panglong Agreement is to be regarded as only instrumental to achieve independence, but in no way taken as the valuable, foundation treaty between the Bamar and non-Bamar states.

She went on to explain that the diversified "unity in diversity" had achieved a common good "independence" from the British in 1948, that could be regarded as Panglong Spirit.
This belittling and interpretation of the Panglong Agreement as not being a national treaty which the Bamar State was a part and still is angered the ethnic leadership.

The analogy is like dismantling the scaffolding when the building of a "Chedi"-  a mound-like or hemispherical structure containing relics, typically the remains of Buddhist monks or nuns, and used as a place of meditation - is finished, in which the ethnic groups are just seen as supporting structure and not part of the permanently built Chedi.

Her interpretation could be likened to the Burmese saying of "Payar Pyee Yin Nyan Phyet", which literally means "When the building of Buddha statue (or Chedi) is finished, demolish the scaffolding".

The issue of "Secession"

The reason why secession was mentioned in the 1947 Union of Burma Constitution is to soothe the ethnic groups' angst that the Bamar would overwhelm the numerically less populated ethnic states only seemed to be her explanation. This contradicts with her father, Aung San's good will intention.

She questioned why the secession clause should be needed if we were to build a federal union.
She also openly said that she didn't like secession and don't want it to be a cornerstone in the formation of a federal union.

Of course, the ethnic nationalities point of view is quite different from her.

Ethnic rights of self-determination

She is not transparent on the matter and would like the ethnic groups to spell it out for themselves. In a way, she is not saying exactly that the Panglong Agreement-based federalism would be the way to go, implying that she might be inclined to find a new path, which at this stage is still all open.

Vision on federalism

Federalism is integration and not disintegration and in a successful federalism there is no secession.

Some federal system of governance have secession rights and some not. But there were secession in countries that didn't have secession rights included in their constitution, while there were countries with secession rights that didn't see secession being made use of.

Common political position important

She urged, as the government side, perhaps meaning the Bamar as a whole, is trying to find a common basis (fundamentally the NLD and the military), the ethnic nationalities should also try to find one common position together.

Other than that she said streamlining the process, parallel undertaking of the all-inclusiveness while the process is rolling, targeting late August as a start of the UPC or 21CPC and spelling out what she meant by all-inclusiveness.

She said all-inclusiveness doesn't mean everyone must sign but mainly the inclusion of people who ought to be participated, which means all elected political parties and legal political parties.

Mai Ja Yang ethnic leadership summit

On 13 July, the convening committee for Mai Ja Yang meeting at the second largest town controlled by Kachin Independence Organization/Army (KIO/KIA) made a resolution to include 4 topics of discussion at the summit. Accordingly, the meeting will discuss 4 topics: Principles of a federal democracy (need to have a federal constitution and state constitutions); Principles of union armed forces and the need for having state defence forces; review and amendment of Framework for Political Dialogue, and endorsement of the Panglong Handbook.

Outlook

The UNFC would definitely need clear answers on the rights of decision-making process when participating in the UPC or 21CPC, without signing the NCA. And again, signing the NCA would depend on if the all-inclusiveness issue – meaning: the inclusion or exclusion of the 3 EAOs, Kokang or Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), Palaung or Ta'ang national Liberation Army (TNLA) and Arakan Army (AA) – is resolved.  Ideally, it would be the government taking all the EAOs into the peace process fold, without reservation. Whether this could be ironed out between the military and the NLD remains to be seen.

Another crucial point to be cleared out is the very concept of how the emergence of country we now know as Burma or Myanmar. The Bamar seems to be convinced that all the territories have been ruled by the ancient kings and thus must be viewed as a continuation of the Bamar rule, after the British left in 1948, while the non-Bamar viewed that this is a newly minted political entity, through the virtue of voluntary Panglong Agreement (1947) and Union of Burma Constitution (1947). This conception would also need to be tuned and cleared.

Closely connected to it would be on how to handle the notion of "secession". The ethnic nationalities see this as an inalienable rights, underlining their independence prior to the signing of Panglong Agreement in 1947, even though they have forsaken to secede, no one is entitled to take it away their birthright secession privilege from them.

The ethnic nationalities could even questioned Suu Kyi on what kind of guarantee she could give by forsaking the secession clause, when their experience after joining the union with Bamar only brought them steadfast human rights violations, militarization, oppression and stripping off all their political rights, starting from 1962 until today.

Other than that, the sharing of political powers, resources and security sector reform would be the pressing core issues that have to be negotiated.

It will all depend on how much give-and-take could be made by all stakeholders of the country, if this decades-old ethnic conflict is to come to an end. Hopefully, all will aim at the "win-win" solution than the "win-lose" outcome, so that we will be able to live in normalcy under the governance of a federal democratic system.

Shan MPs debate hydropower policy in parliament

Posted: 15 Jul 2016 04:21 AM PDT

Following the suspension of the Nongpha Dam last week by Burma's Ministry of Finance and Planning, several Shan politicians and activists have voiced concerns about other hydropower projects being carried out on the Salween River.

Blueprints were originally laid down for six dams to be built on the Salween River in Burma.

In addition to the 1,200 megawatt hydro-dam in Nongpha, proposals have been set for three other hydropower dams in Shan State: a 1,400MW project on the Upper Kunlong; a 2,000 MW dam in Man Tong; and a 7,100 MW dam in Mongton. Plans are also afoot for a 4,500MW project in Ywar Tit, Karenni State; and the 1,360 Hatgyi Dam in Karen State.

Financing for the hydro-electric projects comes from three main sources: China's Three Gorges Corporation; the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand; and Burma's Ministry of Electric Power.

According to a Myanmar Times' report on July 8, the Ministry of Finance and Planning announced that it was suspending the Nongpha hydropower project, which is slated for construction in northern Shan State's Tangyan Township.

Ministry representative Soe Nyunt Lwin said that the government would have to look into the costs and benefits of such projects, and the impact they will have on people and the nation.

According to Sai Hor Hseng, a spokesperson for the Shan Human Rights Foundation, all the dam projects should be suspended, particularly the Mongton Dam due to its enormous size and impact.

"Villagers' properties and roads were already damaged by the construction work," he said. "But victims have never been compensated.

"The construction company told local residents that there is construction everywhere, so they cannot pay out compensation."

Speaking before the Shan State government on July 13, Sai Kham Aung, an MP from the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (SNLD) who represents Hsipaw Township, the public must be made aware of who is responsible for their security and any damage caused by dam construction.

"Will local villagers receive any benefits from the hydropower project?" asked Sai Kham Aung. "In Kyaukme Township, there is the Yeywa Dam. If the construction continues, who will take responsibility?" Does the government share the concerns on these issues?"

In August last year, Shan Herald reported that more than 23,000 people in Shan State voiced concerns over dam construction on the Salween River, also known as the Thanlwin.

"There simply are no policies concerning electricity in Burma," said Sai Wan Leng Kham, an Upper House MP from SNLD who attended a two-day energy policy workshop in Taunggyi last week. "We must try to find methods from the workshop to submit policies and laws in parliament related to electricity."

The peace process: Shwe Ohn’s 6 Ifs

Posted: 15 Jul 2016 04:12 AM PDT

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it
And-what is more-you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

U Shwe Ohn
(Photo: moemaka.com)
In December 1992, a month before the National Convention (NC) set up by the military rulers of the country ostensibly to lay down principles for its third constitution, Shan politician U Shwe Ohn (1923-2010) was detained and sentenced to a year's imprisonment.

His offense: writing and distributing an essay which made suggestions to the NC about how the new constitution should look like.  The 101-page essay titled 'Toward the Third Union of Burma/Myanmar (When, Why, and How)', when it came out in a booklet form, published by SHAN, in 1998, was, along with 'The Village of the Generals' by TNT, one of the news agency's 'bestsellers'.

In it are 6 hypothetical suppositions, which are highly thought provoking.
Also despite the years, it is still very much relevant to what is taking place today under the leadership of U Thein Sein (2011-2016) and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. (2016 -   ).

Perhaps going through them may help today's leaders to reduce their pride and prejudice. So here they are:

1.       If there were no Aung San…..
Considering the non-Burmans' sentiments in 1947, it would be hard to imagine that they would have agreed to proposals by any Burman leaders for a union. The reason that they had agreed to was because Burma had a leader like Aung San who was clean, honest, genuinely patriotic, patient and had foresight.

2.       If there were no SSPFL…..
The Shan State People's Freedom League (SSPFL), set up by Shan youths in 1946, had steadfastly advocated joint independence with the Burmans. It was through its vigorous campaigning that the hesitating ruling princes of Shan States finally gave the go-ahead for the idea.

(Despite its tireless efforts at Shan-Burman friendship and solidarity, the SSPFL was destroyed by the AFPFL government following independence).

3.       If no agreement were not reached at Panglong……
There would be no Frontier Areas Committee of Enquiry (FACE) to sound out the non-Burmans' wishes. And there would have been no Union of Burma/Myanmar. Instead, Burma Proper, also known as Ministerial Burma, would become independent and the rest remain under British rule.

4.       If the Right of Secession were not provided in the 1947 Constitution……
On 16 June 1947, the Prince of Mongpawn Sao Sam Tun protested that Aung San's directives for the constitution did not include the non-Burmans' right of secession, as promised at Panglong. "We think there's only one thing left for us to do," he reportedly told U Nu, "and that is to pack our bags and go home."

The AFPFL leaders, in response, assured him since the principle had been accepted, there should be no lingering doubts. The result was the incorporation  of Chapter 10. Right of Secession in the constitution.
It is crystal clear that no Union of Burma/Myanmar would have emerged without it.

5.       If Part ⅡScheduled Areas were not included in Kachin State…..
(Myitkyina and Bhamo districts at that time were designated as Part ⅡScheduled Areas, where the Ministerial Burma government could advise but the final decision rested with the British Government—author's note)

Without them, there would be no Kachin State and Kachin leadership would have objected. Plans for the formation of a Union would then be in jeopardy.

6.       If there were no Union of Burma/Myanmar……
As said in If #3, Burma and the Frontier Areas would have been separated, with the former becoming independent, and the latter still under British rule. But for how long would that be?

The Federated Malay States, on which the Federated Shan States had modeled itself in 1922, became an independent dominion in the British Commonwealth in 1957. And since 1963, it has become known as Federation of Malaysia.

Similarly, the Frontier Areas would, in all likelihood, become independent by that time. And afterward, probably  the Republic of Burma and the independent Frontier Areas will agree to form a Union on equal footing.

No doubt something to chew upon, though the mill never grinds on the water that is past. But it may help to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

Finally, U Shwe Ohn showers all the praises on Aung San, who said on 16 June 1947, with regards to the Panglong Agreement and the FACE recommendations, "We not only accept the letter of the agreement but also the spirit of the agreement."

He later declared, "I have heard that some ethnic leaders are worried whether we are going to deviate from the spirit of the agreement (in Burmese, he used the words,"  "original concept"). What I would like to say here is if they still harbor such doubts, they are insulting both our sense of honor and sense of pride."

If those words do not epitomize the Spirit of Panglong, what does?

The launch of a new research paper "Achieving Health Equity in Contested Areas of Southeast Myanmar"

Posted: 15 Jul 2016 12:12 AM PDT

Dear colleagues,

The Asia Foundation cordially invites you to attend the launch of a new research paper "Achieving Health Equity in Contested Areas of Southeast Myanmar" by Bill Davis and Kim Joliffe. The report gives an overview of the separate Ministry of Health (MoH) and EAO-linked health systems that exist in southeast Myanmar, and looks at how coordination and cooperation have increased since ceasefires were signed in 2011 and 2012. It provides guidance and actionable recommendations for government, ethnic organizations, and international aid actors on how to strengthen service delivery and improve levels of cooperation and coordination. Please join us on Wednesday, July 20th at the Novotel Yangon Max. The launch is from 15:30-17:00, and registration will be from 15:00-15:30. For further information please find attached to this email the invitation. Please feel free to circulate this among your network.

Sincerely,

The Asia Foundation
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)