| |
Peace and Security Cluster, 7 Sept. 2004 Asia-Europe People's Forum.
CONFLICT AND RESOLUTIONS FROM BELOW: HOW DO DIFFERENT ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE ARMED CONFLICTS?
by Harn Yawnghwe
Euro-Burma Office, Canada
Abstract
Myanmar/Burma has experienced more than 50 years of internal armed conflict. There
are more than 40 ethnic-based armies numbering a total of about 50,000 men fighting against a
500,000 strong central government controlled army. The top down approach to conflict resolution has
always been one of using superior force to impose an uneasy 'peace' with varying results in different
areas. In 1999, a different approach was applied from below. This approach tried to get at the root of
the conflict. Instead of imposing a solution, an attempt was made to see how in the recent past, the
various ethnic groups were united - i.e. the struggle for independence from Britain. The principles that
were applied then were re-applied to the present, giving all participants something in common. From
being 'victims', the participants were also encouraged to think of how they could become the change
agents. The process is still in progress. The conflict in Myanmar/Burma has not been resolved.
Conflict continues especially with the central government. Prospects look bleak since the ruling party
has not changed its approach to conflict resolution. But for those involved in the process of
reconciliation, there is a new hope and a clear vision for the future. They are confident that the
resolutions from below will eventually influence the outcome.
The Experience of Myanmar/Burma
Many people, are not aware of the ethnic conflict in Burma. When most people think of
Burma, they think of the conflict between the military rulers and the democracy advocates led
by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. In fact, we have had an ongoing civil war or ethnic conflict in
Burma since independence in 1948. Even the United Nations did not officially recognize this
problem until 1994 when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for a
'Tripartite Dialogue' to resolve the problem in Burma. By tripartite, the UN meant the ruling
military, the democracy advocates and the ethnic nationalities or minorities who make up
40% of the population of 50 million. The ethnic conflict in Burma is different from Bosnia in
two important aspects:
- The conflict is vertical, not horizontal. In other words, the ethnic nationalities are in
conflict with the central authority and not with each other;
- The conflict grew because a key legal agreement was not implemented after
independence. In other words, the conflict is a political one. This means that a political
solution is possible.
To explain the situation briefly:
Map No.1 shows British Burma. When Britain defeated the Burman king in 1886, they
annexed his kingdom and made it a British colony. The surrounding areas, which were
independent principalities were ruled indirectly as protectorates. They served as buffer states
between British interests and the growing French influence in Indo-china.
Map No.2 shows Burma during the Second World War. Burman nationalists led by General
Aung San had worked with Japan to drive the British out so an 'independent' Burma was set
up. The area under the authority of the Government of Burma is clearly shown.
Map No.3 shows the area that makes up the Union of Burma after independence in 1948.
This came about because the leaders of the neighbouring states agreed to join Burma as equal
partner states in a Union of States. This is known as the Panglong Agreement of 1947.
The troubles started when the Constitution of the Union recognized the existence of the
neighbouring states but made them subordinate to the central government in Rangoon. The
troubles intensified in 1958 when the Shan State tried to exercise its constitutional right to
secede. As a compromise, a 'Federal Movement' was started to amend the constitution in
1960. But General Ne Win believed that a federation would break-up the country and seized
power. In the process, he suspended the constitution. Therefore, the neighbouring states felt
they were no longer legally bound to the Union and started wars to liberate themselves.
The National Reconciliation Programme (NRP), which was started in 1999 is based on
- Preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Union of Burma;
- Finding a political solution that would be acceptable to all the constituent states;
- Preparing the ethnic nationalities for a 'Tripartite Dialogue'as called for by the UN.
This last point is especially important because if you look at the three partners in a 'Tripartite Dialogue', the military is well prepared; and the democracy advocates have a recognized
leader in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. But the ethnic nationalities are divided geographically and
legally. How can 40 different armies and political parties negotiate meaningfully?
Since all the ethnic nationalities agree on the concept of equality and federalism, the NRP
based its strategy on working initially with each state. Instead of focussing on problems, they
were asked to develop a vision for their state. All groups - legal political parties; community
leaders; armies with cease-fire agreements with the military; armies still fighting the central
government; political leaders in exile - from each state, were encouraged to work together.
One of the tools we use is to have workshops for senior leaders on Conflict Resolution to
make them aware of how similar problems were resolved in other conflict situations.
Another tool is to encourage each state to draft their own state constitutions. In this process
they have had to deal with how they want to govern themselves, how to be inclusive, how to
respect the minorities in their midst and how they want to relate to the central government. It
is a very useful exercise to deal with sensitive issues in a non-emotional setting. The idea is
not to come up with a finished constitution but to go through the process of working together
and thinking through issues collectively - especially sensitive ones.
An example is the issue of the Muslim Rohingyas who make up about 40-50% of the
population in Arakan State. For years, the Buddhist Rakhaing and Muslim Rohingyas have
lived separate existences, each suspicious of the other. Buddhist-Muslim riots have from time
to time created tension. To make matters worse, the Rakhaing political groups have also in
the past been split into 4-5 groups. But the Rakhaings have now formed an Arakan National
Council. In the process of creating a vision for their state and drafting a state constitution, the
Rakhaing have begun to seek input from the Muslim Rohingyas.
The Chins were also divided along dialect and political lines into about 8 groups. In working
together, they have now formed the Political Affairs Committee for Chinland.
The Kachins used to be dominated by the Kachin Independence Organization which agreed
to a cease-fire with the Burmese military in 1995. There is now some tension as community
leaders and some segment of society start to question the benefits of a cease-fire. More work
is needed but the inclusive process of dialogue for drafting a state constitution has begun.
The Shan State is the most populous and multi-ethnic of all the ethnic states. An inclusive
process of drafting a state constitution has also begun. But more important, the leading legal
political parties; the cease-fire armies; community leaders; the non-cease-fire armies; and
exile politicians; have begun a process of close political consultations. The task is to develop
a common vision acceptable to all the ethnic communities in the State. This is in progress.
The Karenni or Kayah State has the most dramatic story. Karenni did not agree to the
Panglong Agreement. They were recognized by the British as a sovereign state in the 19 th
century and they continued to maintain that they were independent. They even rejected the
Federal Movement in 1960. But now, Karenni is one of the strongest advocates for re-building
a Union of Burma with equal participation by all member states.
The Karen have been the backbone of all the resistance movements - ethnic and democratic.
But they were weakened by a split in the mid-1990s. A splinter Democratic Karen Buddhist
Army was supported by the Burmese military to counter the influence of the Christian-led
Karen resistance. The Karen have, however, recovered and are now leading the ethnic
nationalities in the National Reconciliation Programme.
The Mon have a cease-fire with the Burmese military. They are, therefore, unable to
participate openly in many of the NRP activities. But they are aware and have also initiated a
state constitution drafting process.
In addition to these developments in each state, the ethnic nationalities have now formed an
Ethnic Nationalities Council. In time, such a council could represent the seven ethnic states if
and when a UN-sponsored 'Tripartite Dialogue' takes place.
In the meanwhile, the Council is developing political options for the ethnic nationalities. A
good example is that when the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC)
announced a Road Map to Democracy in August 2003, the ethnic nationalities were able to
propose modifications to the Road Map to make it more acceptable and workable. Their
proposal was ignored but for the first time the ethnic nationalities were able to work together
and make a common proposal that could have helped resolve the political conflict.
Again when the SPDC announced a convening of a National Convention to draft a new
constitution, the ethnic nationalities (through the cease-fire groups) were able to make their
suggestions. Again they were ignored. But the cohesion amongst the ethnic nationalities
irrespective of whether they are legal political parties; cease-fire armies; or non-cease-fire
armies has been noticed by the international community. This is a major departure from the
normal perception that the ethnic problem and armed conflict in Burma is unsolvable.
The idea then is for the ethnic nationalities to prepare for a 'Tripartite Dialogue' or respond to
SPDC initiatives. But even if nothing developed along those lines, the ethnic nationalities
will have in the process been strengthened. They will be capable of jointly laying the
groundwork for nation building based on equality, inclusiveness, and respect for each others
diverse backgrounds and ethnicity. They can then decide whether to continue in the current
Union of Burma or build their own version of a better Union of Burma without the SPDC.
|
|
