Bangkok Post (Opinion)
The second session of the 21st Century Panglong Peace
Conference made substantial progress that offers a beacon of hope for
sustainable peace in Myanmar.
The five-day conference, which began on May 24, ended a
day later than the original schedule. It brought together about 1,400
representatives from the government, parliament, the military, political
parties, ethnic armed organisations and civil society groups.
Out of the 41 points discussed covering issues of
political, economic, social, security, and land and environment, the conference
was able to reach agreement on 37 points, largely in a consensus manner, with
the ultimate goal of reaching a Union Peace Accord which is expected to serve
as the foundation for durable peace in a federal Myanmar.
The agreed points, proposed by the Union Peace Dialogue
Joint Committee (UPDJC), included a union based on democracy and federalism,
with the right to self-determination; no ethnic races to be given special
privileges; and states and regions to write their own constitutions and laws in
accordance with the 2008 constitution.
Myanmar's state counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, who is
chairwoman of the UPDJC, said in her closing remarks: "The agreements that
we have been able to sign today mark a significant step on our path toward
peace, national reconciliation, and the emergence of a democratic federal
Union."
Agreements have yet to be reached on key principles of
federalism such as equality and self-determination, which have been kept for
further deliberation and discussion in the next round of the peace conference,
which is tentatively scheduled in the next six months.
Two most critical issues were on the question of "federal
army" and "secession", which are the two inherent elements of a
federal government envisioned by the country's ethnic minorities.
The military, which plays a dominant role in politics and
the peace process, insists there should be a single army or one national army
under the new federal arrangement. However, the ethnic armed groups want to see
a federal army which would allow them to retain their respective armed forces.
The question of a federal army has been a topic of intense debate between the ethnic
armed groups and the Myanmar military since the days of discussions over the
text of the nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA).
There are two basic differing schools of thought. The
Myanmar military believes that by allowing the ethnic armed groups to retain
their weapons and personnel, there will be a constant threat to territorial
integrity, national solidarity and potential armed conflicts between the union
army and regional forces. It also holds a lingering concern that the union or
federal government could end up having a limited control over state and
regional governments, as happened during U Nu's premiership, the first civilian
government.
On the other hand, the ethnic armed groups argue that
given the historical nature of the conflicts in the country where the army has
suppressed their aspirations for autonomy, it is necessary for them to retain
their armed forces to protect themselves in the event of unsuspected or
unprovoked attacks from the Myanmar army, or at least as a deterring factor.
to retain their armed forces to protect themselves in the
event of unsuspected or unprovoked attacks from the Myanmar army, or at least
as a deterring factor.
Under the federal army, the ethnic armed groups would
also want to see their armed forces being transformed or integrated into state
forces. Historically, ethnic minorities do not trust the Myanmar army, which is
dominated by the majority Bama/Burman ethnic group, to safeguard and promote
their fundamental interests, such as culture, language and tradition.
Many among the ethnic minorities also believe that
because of the chauvinistic ideology of the Myanmar military and the civilian
Burman elites in the past, their situation could even get worse if their armed
forces are dissolved and the Myanmar army is given complete control of their
internal security affairs. The underlying problem is lack of trust.
The other critical issue is the question of
"secession". Perhaps, this has been the most complicated and
challenging one single issue the country faces since its independence from
Britain in 1948.
Under the NCA text, the ethnic armed groups and the
Myanmar army have agreed in principle to uphold the three national causes that
have been championed by the successive military governments: non-disintegration
of national solidarity, and perpetuation of national sovereignty.
According to the NCA text, all signatories have agreed to
remain in the union. In other words, agreeing to the non-disintegration of the
union means that ethnic armed groups have agreed not to support any activity or
movement that could break up the country. It also means that they would not
demand an independent state of their own.
However, the word "secession" has an important
historical significance to the country's ethnic minorities. When the first
constitution of independent Burma was drafted in 1947, the word
"secession" was inserted to allow the non-Burman ethnic nationalities
to seek independence from the union after 10 years of the formation of the
Union of Burma.
The demand for federalism, which was construed by the
Myanmar army as a secessionist movement, was also one fundamental reason why
the army led by General Ne Win staged a coup in 1962, thereby dashing the hopes
and aspirations of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities, which entailed the
ethnic armed groups to demand, at least in their initial years of formation,
for complete independence or secession from the Union of Burma.
The opinion of the ethnic armed groups, particularly
those involved in the NCA drafting process, is that though they are willing to
subscribe to the non-disintegration principle, they would not like to see the
word "non-secession" or "non-secessionism" inserted into
the union peace accord.
As both issues of "federal army" and
"secession" are crucial to the realisation of the envisioned federal
Myanmar, future talks and deliberations cannot avoid sorting out these
disagreements. Perhaps, the best possible solution will be for both sides to
listen to each other's concerns and ready to compromise in the larger interest
of forming a unified country.
These issues are crucial to the success of the 21st
Panglong peace conference but perhaps the more important issue is to build
trust between ethnic armed groups, and the Myanmar army and the elected civilian
government, both of which are dominated by the Bama/Burman/Myanmar ethnic
group.
The immediate concern for the UPDJC should be bringing on
board the non-signatory groups of the United Nationalities Federal Council and
the Federal Political Negotiation and Consultative Committee, a combined
strength of both armed groups which are larger and much more powerful than the
NCA signatory groups. All these groups, and other groups which have not done
so, should be allowed to hold national-level dialogues in their respective
controlled areas.
Peace cannot prevail, at least will be very difficult to
sustain, without the participation and support of all the armed groups, both
signatory and non-signatory ones.