A Silver Lining

By Kanbawza Win

For the first time, there is every possibility that Burma will be in the agenda of the United Nations Security Council indicating that the Burmese, as a race and nation are unable and unwilling to settle things peaceably among themselves. The Generals` egoism and uncompromising attitude has compelled them to rely on the world body and if need be the UNSC can wield a big stick, to help them solve their own problem. Every peace loving peoples of Burma, especially the pro democracy movement and the ethnic nationalities have placed much hope on the UN. But as often, we forget to ask ourselves of whether the world body ever fulfil the hope of humanity itself. Sometimes we fear that the world leaders are failing the most fundamental test of their own humanity. Under Secretary General Jan Egeland has commented, " Darfur region has become one of the most humanitarian crises in the world". Burma is just one of the many, where tens of thousands of innocent people have died. The world leaders and head of states have just met in New York in their quest to reform the organization but it seem that it has just taken one step and still a long way to the desired goal of the people of the world.

Obviously the most urgent issue facing will not be who get a permanent seat on the Security Council, nor even how to build consensus on the potentially catastrophic nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It will be whether innocents will be saved from slaughter of the dictators and political struggles such as Burma, Congo, Darfur and other little known or half forgotten humanitarian crises around the world and who will do the saving? The lives of millions of people are at stake.

The framer of UN Charter, written more than half a century ago with appalling losses of Word War II fresh in their minds has started best as "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". The sense of excitement and romantic adventure aim was to outlaw aggression and create a system of collective security proscribed interference in the internal affairs of others. Even though the number of conflicts between states diminished, internal conflicts such as those in Burma, Bosnia, Rwanda and the likes has become the crucial issue. The international consensus on the need for protective action across borders has been slow to materialize. UN Secretary General himself has posed this question, "if humanitarian intervention was indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty whom will the world respond to such brutal inhumanity?" This question is now directly applicable to the case of the Burmese crisis.

Functions and Charter of the UNSC

"A drowning man will catch a last straw" goes a saying, so also the people of Burma have pin much hope on the UN as the only way to their liberation. The romance with the UN started way back in 1993 when the Special Rapporteur Professor Yozo Yokata was appointed as the Chairman on the Commission on Human Rights and submitted her report to the 47^th session of the UN General Assembly and since then Burma has been in some way or other in the agenda of the General Assembly with no results. Now that there is some glimmer of hope to be taken by the Security Council one will have to wait and see for it.

Currently if we were to look at the Security Council members we have Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Romania, and United Republic of Tanzania as rotating members in which five countries (Algeria, Benin, Brazil Philippines and Rumania) will end their membership by the end of this year. Then we have the five permanent members (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and USA).

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "Great Power Unanimity", often referred to as the "Veto" power.

Under the Charter, all members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which member states are obligated under the Charter. The functions and power of the Security Council are as follows:-

• to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
• to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
• to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
• to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
• to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
• to call on members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
• to take military action against an aggressor;
• to recommend the admission of new members;
• to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";

to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

So in the Burmese case even it were passed by the Security Council we will have to decipher as to what functions it recommend. If it recommends function No.6, the Junta will remain smug as before, however if it recommend function No 7, then democracy and the rule of law is within days to be reached.

R2P Theory

However, it is still a long way to go, "the responsibility to protect" better known by its acronym as R2P, is resisted by almost every group. The Burmese genocide on its own people especially the ethnic races pales in comparison of what happens in Africa, and, yet some of the African government are more concerned on holding to their power than to have the R2P entrusted upon them. Maybe the European exploitation and the slave trade has left too much of a legacy. The Latin Americans look askance through the prism of two centuries of confliction relations with the US. The proponents of Asian values spearheaded by ASEAN are totally dedicated to the 17^th century European belief in sovereignty, while the Americans are wary that it might put the constraints on their capacity to act. Obviously the Arabs and some Muslim countries remember "the crusades" which they found it parallels in the Palestine state.

This case of R2P became more complicated and complex with the Iraq war when a super power takes unilateral action and yet today its justification of weapons of mass destruction or relations with Al Qaeda could not be found and obviously Osama bin-Laden is laughing in his sleeves. Perhaps, if Uncle Sam has taken action when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds (1988) or suppressed the Shiites (1991) it may have held some water on the truth of R2P. Neither, of it was the last resort when the UN was still engaged in weapon inspection and the sanctions remain in effect. It has miserably failed in the right authority and has greatly tarnished the R2P theory.

The mainstream legal view is that the UNSC collectively, not individual members own the decision to go to war in all cases beyond actual or pre-emptive self-defence. Not even a simple majority of the Council supported the way, unlike the case of Kosov where intervention was blocked by Russian veto. Hence to put the Burmese case in this background and scenario it is somewhat disheartening to the ethno-democratic forces of Burma.

However, hope springs eternal in human breast as every cloud has a silver lining.

Nothing is so powerful as an idea of R2P whose time on Burma has dawned. The high level of UN reform appointed by Kofi Annan endorsed R2P as an emerging norm of international behaviour. The Secretary General himself has embraced the idea. What remains is for the world leaders to raise above quarrelsome instincts of their respective ambassadors that they should interpret the UN Charter genuinely "We the Peoples" and not as "We the Permanent Representatives". Their hearts must bear in mind that they have the sacred trust of the entire people of the world "the responsibility to protect the innocent" and Burma is just one of the test cases.

Previously Russia and China have blocked the inclusion of Burmese problem in the UN Security Council's agenda, arguing the issue was outside the Council's mandate. The Russian representative Konstantin Dolgov who argues that the Security Council was already seized with matters of international peace and security shot down the United States representative Gerald Scott, who reminded that the situation in Burma continues to deteriorate. The reality is that it functions as an organization of, by and for member states should serve the people of the world and not to the designs of governments.

Will of the Peoples or Governments

As an ethno democratic Burmese, we strongly think that the United Nations has several rooms for improvement and needs to achieve a better balance between the wish of the peoples and the will of governments; between the aspirations for a better world and its performance in the real world; between the suffocating political reality and the vision of an uplifting world that has inspired generations of dreamers and idealists to work for the betterment of humanity across cultural, religious and political borders.

The causes and consequences of public policy challenges and decisions are international, but the authority for addressing them is still vested in states. The United Nations' mandates are global, but its staffing and financial resources are less than that of major municipal authorities. Set up as a many-splendor forum for realizing humanity's loftiest aspirations, it has often been reduced to a many-splintered organization mired in petty squabbles.

Originally the founders created the General Assembly as the forum of choice for discussing the world's problems and articulating global norms, the Security Council for keeping the peace and enforcing the norms, the specialized agencies to address transnational technical problems, and the office of secretary general to run this vast machinery smoothly and efficiently. In fact the Assembly has become a forum for public recriminations more than public diplomacy, the Cold War was won by the United States and its allies rather than being resolved by the United Nations, and countries have moved from poverty to prosperity by embracing market principles and engaging with the world economy rather than relying on UN handouts. For critics, the organization has played a scarcely discernible role in keeping the peace, promoting successful development or defeating the worst enemies of freedom and human rights since 1945. Moral clarity and backbone, essential for courage of convictions, do not sit easily alongside institutional timidity and instinctive risk-aversion.

Yet the United Nations can still claim several accomplishments, de-colonization, elimination of apartheid, peacekeeping missions, behind-the-scenes peacemaking, the development and extension of the rule of law, the promotion of the norms of human rights, gender empowerment, assistance to refugees, and collective action for such common problems as resource depletion and environmental degradation. On balance, the world has been a better and less bloody place with the United Nations' help. The United Nations is still a universal in membership. It has authority without power. It symbolizes global governance. It often acts as a de facto world government but disclaims responsibility for the worldwide outcomes of its actions.

Even though the United Nations has many failings and flaws and often used or rather abused by governments for finger pointing, it is still very useful because the world organization remains focus on international expectations and the focus of collective action. In spite of being label as an international bureaucracy, a politicians' talk shop or a spineless and toothless cop on the beat the United Nations is the one body that houses the divided fragments of humanity. It is an idea, a symbol of an imagined and constructed community of strangers. It exists to bring about a world where fear is changed to hope, want gives way to dignity and apprehensions are turned into aspirations.

Genuine National Solidarity

If ever the Burmese problem is tackle by the UNSC and supposing the UN is able to solve the immediate crisis and pro democracy movement came to power, will the Burmese problem be solved? There is no guaranteed peace will be restored and the people will live in harmony as long as Myanmarnization is going on with the unitary form of government. Sooner or later, the Burmese problem will flare up again as the crises is rooted in history and not with the Burmese military only.

When the Union of Burma was formed in 1947 under the able leadership of Bogyoke Aung San (father of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi), the ethnic nationalities signed the Panglong agreement with the sole purpose of getting independence from Britain and an ad hoc agreement to go along with the majority Myanmar for a certain period (ten years) as a test case and later to decide their own future better known as self determination. The ethnic nationalities hope to maintain their language, culture, religion, values and their way of life and did not want to be subjected to Myanmarnization, even though they accepted Burmese as a linga franca as the medium of communication. But the ethnic aspirations were not met by the central government and there was resentment. Even though some resorted to arms struggle the majority of the ethnics have peacefully asserted their rights at the 1959 Taunggyi Conference according to the democratic tradition. The Myanmar groups or rather the Myanmar dominated army replied by a military coup d'état, on March 2nd 1962. Since then the struggle for democracy and human rights have been going on by the people of Burma. Hence the crux of the Burmese problem is not of democracy but the problem of ethnic nationalities. There will be no problem of democracy if the central government can meet the aspirations of the ethnic nationalities and settle it peaceably with give and take policy. So the UN must tackle the very basic problem before it can embark on democracy for the people of Burma. Then and only then there will be a long lasting peace and conflict resolution.

The UN intervention throughout the world whether it is in Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo, Berundi, Rawanda or whatever is not to impose their solutions on them but to work it out fairly among the participants and if possible to continue to stay on as a single federated unit of a country. This is in line with the Burmese ethnic groups, who have declared their intention of continuing to stay on in the Union of Burma provided they are treated with respect and equality, in other words is a Federal form of government. 

The Junta's Perspective

It is said that whenever there is a problem there are four ways of approaching it.

• to ignore it completely
• to blame the other side for all the problems
• to blame yourselves and admit it
• to genuinely try to find the answer negotiations, conflict resolutions and compromise

The Burmese military regime adopted the first two approaches all these years and is bent on continue its as authentic proof can be found when it is not shy to enter another record in the Guinness Book of Records as the first country to hold the National Convention without the participation of the people's representative. The coming National Convention lack any international or domestic credibility and will serve only to create further tensions within the country and continued international isolation. In the meantime the nine UN agencies inside Burma has clearly indicated that that poverty is rampant and that about one quarter of the population estimated about 13 to 15 million people are having a hard time in making both ends meet and most of them survived under the poverty line. The UNICEF reports also pointed out that more than 57.6% of the children in the country couldn't go to school because the parents cannot afford basic education for their children. In the non-Burman area elementary schools were closed down because of the Burmanization policy. But the most troubling aspect is that the regime construes the high school and university students as potentials trouble makers. The regime's allotment of the health care resources is 0.38% of GDP in 1995/6 slides down from 0.38% to 0.17% in 2,000 while the rate of infant mortality rises of the 1.3 million children born 95,200 will never celebrate their first birthday and another 139,000 will die before reaching the age of 5 (according to UNICEF figures) while one in three children became malnourished. HIV/AIDS or better known as Na Wa Ta disease (because there was not a single person suffering HIV prior to 1988) rose to 580,000.

However, the crowning factor was the mismanagement of the economy. The regime blundered the scarce resources with their cronies who are just economic bumpkins. This lack of governance is the main cause of the untold sufferings of the people. The Burmese regime continue to ignore all these facts and figures as it had adopted the principle of lying the very concept of truth and still continues to lie to the country, people and to the international community. Instead it is bent on preparing the day for the final show down with the people and the Burmese army.

The Security Council Article 24(1) stipulates, "serious internal civil strife has serious external repercussions." And Burma has become a classic case. The agony of the Burmese people has become a shame on the United Nations and the world itself. Clearly the onus has fell on the UN Security Council to prove it otherwise.

There is very little hope that the regime will come to reason and we are afraid that it will still be hard headed as it had done all these one and half decades. The fact that it has chosen to give up the ASEAN Chairmanship rather than relenting its political hold and is ploying with the idea of leaving the ILO because it could not repel the accusation of using forced labour, neither would it heed the warning of the WFP of the impending famine all indicates that it is bent on following its own way, not matter what may come. Its only obsession is as long as it would keep them in power that have the heart of killing millions of its own people. It is a pity that half a century of power has completely corrupted the Burmese Generals and is bent on sustaining their power at any cost. It will continue to tenaciously cling on the theory that this is an internal affairs and that the UNSC has no right to take action. No reason or well sound hypothesis will move them and it seems that they are prepared for a Kamakaze type of ending. They have come up with the gun and have chosen to go with the gun.

``Hope for the Best and Prepare for the Worst``, are the famous words of our beloved Bogyoke Aung San on his trip to London for Burma's independence? They are still echoing in the ears of patriotic people of Burma. How do we prepare ourselves if the Junta is headed for the showdown with the UN? How can we implement our bounden duties and be part of the big stick that compelled the Junta to hand over its power to the rightful people of Burma is the most crucial thought which the Burmese have. This action will be the triumph card to make or break the Union of Burma.

The initiation of the two Nobel Laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former President Vaclav Havel was supported by all the people of Burma both inside and outside the country. Statement of support can be seen from every segment of the Burmese society and by every Burmese ethnic nationality. Nobody can deny that the tide has turn and the light at the end of the tunnel has become brighter.

However, if all the peaceful means are exhausted and come to blows with the UN, it will be the people of Burma who will suffer first. There seems to be no choice, a surgical knife pains the patient but it will take out the pus and will be on the road to recovery. The UN is not perfect either, as it has no standing army of its own and has to rely on the armed forces from its member countries for peace keeping. However its aim are noble.  It will be the duty of the resistance both the ethnic and the pro democracy groups to join hands with the UN peace keeping troops for the coup de grace.

Whether the combined groups under a single command be part of the big stick that the UN will wield if it ever comes to a show down with the Junta is still to be seen.  We hope and pray that those who are at the helm of the resistance would harbor such visions Only when the ethnic nationalities and the pro democracy group stand shoulder to shoulder and face the task squarely, there is hope of building the new Federal Democratic Union of Burma. We hope that the Burmese and ethnic nationalities will soon be invigorated with new bloods and intelligentsia to take the lead leaving behind petty jealousies and back biting among them.

Currently we do not need politicians but statesmen that will be in a position to clearly guide the Burmese people in this noble task of liberation. Also they must meander through the complicated globalize world. They must have a vision to steer it along the right path and find the appropriate nixes of the Burmese problem, the UN, the Asian values and the international community. Then and only then our mother country would be free from the boots of the military. The leadership must be able to meet the aspirations of the majority pro-democracy Myanmar and satisfy the ethnic groups. Perhaps the last two months of this year 2005 will be a decisive year for the country.

Calgary

The views express here are solely the opinions of the authors.  Kanbawza Win is the author of "A Burmese Appeal to the UN and US." published in 1994.  (Kaowao Editor)