By Lahpai Seng Raw
(Excerpts from the keynote address given at the Asia Pacific Sociological Association Conference, Chiangmai University, on February 15, 2014; reformatted and edited in part)Ethnic RelationsWith regard to how the Bamars – the ethnic majority group – view ethnic minorities, a couple of quotes I found, stuck away in apparently non-contentious articles, to be quite disquieting and revealing.
Nobel Peace Prize winner and opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, on her recent visit to Chin State was quoted in The Irrawaddy[1] as saying: “The government should keep in touch with ethnic people to learn what they need.”
To me, the quote comes across as saying: ‘We the government; We the NLD; We the Bamas; will look after you’. The way I see it, if ‘the government’ includes true representatives of the ethnic peoples – not just those that are centrally handpicked – they will make sure their constituents’ interests and needs are heard and attended to. That is what federalism is about.
On a similar note, Dr. Dagmar Hellmann-Rajanayagam of the University of Passau, Germany, explains in her paper “Approximations to the Kachins”, why the British were caught so off guard in 1946, when the Kachins opted for independence and Union with the Bamars and other ethnic groups.
She writes:
In hindsight, it is not really difficult to see why. The Kachins were treated by the British something like the gnomes of Harry Potter fame, the useful and loyal, but in the first place slightly dumb and easily-led lesser beings, who are supposed to exist to serve the higher wizards. The perceptions of the British were coloured by their own interests: they presumed to speak for the Kachins, but rarely bothered to find out what the latter actually thought and wanted.
I sincerely hope today’s Bamars, the elites and the more educated, do not have the Harry Potter wizard syndrome.
In the years after independence, ethnic nationals, co-founders of the Union, finding themselves marginalized and excluded from the decision making process, took up arms to make their voices heard. Decades of armed conflict in ethnic regions have resulted in uneven distribution of wealth and lack of access to education. This has the potential of making minorities more susceptible to populist ideas, the false promises and short-term development offers of government cronies and foreign companies out to further their own economic interests.
Another equally appalling instance is a draft drawn up by a government committee for the Comprehensive Education Sector Review[2]. The section on education goals states, “students have to be taught to have the right idea based on Myanmar national characteristics.”
“Right idea”?? Only “Myanmar national characteristics”?? What of all the other ethnic groups?? Many were horrified to think how this could be interpreted or put into practice. On the positive side, these objections and queries have been put up to the committee for review.
And yes, we the minority, the non-Bamar ethnic nationals, must also realize that it is high time to cultivate the Bamar majority’s support in our cause and merge our respective goals into one.
The success of the Save the Irrawaddy Campaign is just such an example. The fight to stop construction of a major dam on the Irrawaddy Confluence was first initiated by the Kachins, at the upper reaches of the river. But when the devastating consequences of such a dam caught nationwide attention, concerned citizens from all walks of life and ethnicity joined hands to launch the campaign that compelled the President to suspend construction during his term of office.
The Role of the MilitarySenior General Min Aung Hlaing, Commander in Chief of the Defence Services, in his 2013 Armed Forces Day speech, sums up the 3 main objectives of the Tatmadaw (as the military is known in Myanmar) as: non-disintegration of the union, non-disintegration of national solidarity, and perpetuation of sovereignty.
Article 340 of the 2008 constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar states: “With the approval of the National Defence and Security Council, the Defence Services has the authority to administer the participation of the entire people in the Security and Defence of the Union. The strategy of the people’s militia shall be carried out under the leadership of the Defence Services.”
There can be no dispute that in present day Myanmar, the role of the Tatmadaw is not simply confined to national defense. The Tatmadaw is currently the most powerful single component in Parliament, with 25% seats held directly by military personnel and a further 52% held by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. This gives the Tatmadaw in essence, absolute legislative control, as Section 436 in the Constitution stipulates that constitutional amendments can only be made by a vote of more than 75% of all the representatives of Parliament.
Also of serious concern is the very structure of the State in which military spending is estimated to take up as much as 21% of the national budget. Added to this is the burden borne by communities in ethnic regions for the upkeep of non-state military groups, and people’s militias created by the Tatmadaw to further expand military control over contested territories and act as counters to ethnic opposition forces.
As long as conflict continues, maintaining these forces will be a drain on local finances and communities.
All armed groups would do well to take note that provisioning their troops with local supplies invariably incites the people against them, as evidenced by the end result of Napoleon’s strategy of living off the land during the early 19
th century Peninsular War that led to his down fall.
A Federal Army?In the face of all these complexities, transitioning the present Tatmadaw into a more inclusive federal army, as envisioned by 17 ethnic resistance organizations, presents itself as an attractive, viable alternative.
Gen. Gun Maw, deputy chief of the Kachin Independence Army, a key peace talks negotiator, and Myanmar’s 2013 Person of the Year according to an online survey conducted by the Democratic Voice of Burma, had this to say when asked on the topic in a recent Irrawaddy interview.
“What we want is a Tatmadaw that includes all nationalities, because we all live in this country together. That is why we are calling for a Federal Union Army. But how to transform the current Tatmadaw is something that we have to discuss with everyone concerned.”
A good model for such a force would be the British Armed Forces, with its proven track record of integrating different national contingents like the Irish, Gurkha and others from Commonwealth countries under one command. The UK, in my opinion, is in a very good position to enable this process as it is currently “engaging with” the Tatmadaw, and providing “training aimed to expose future senior officers to new thinking, and encourage the Tatmadaw to prepare for a new role.”
In this centennial year of the outbreak of WWI, I would like to challenge the British government to commit to this cause in commemoration of the Kachins, Chins and Karens who served and fought valiantly for the British Empire in the Mesopotamian Campaign in WWI, and the Allied cause in WWII.
President Thein Sein’s monthly radio address on February 1, urging lawmakers to take into account the demands of ethnic armed groups in any future constitutional amendments, is reason to hope that the evolvement of the Tatmadaw into a more ethnically integrated military can become a reality once a strong federal structure is in place.
ConstitutionMyanmar’s current constitution is not inclusive and neither does the current initiative for peace lay out a clear plan to address the legitimate concerns of the co-founders of the Union, the non-Bamars. The reality so far is a huge contestation. It is not encouraging that amending this flawed constitution is in the hands of a handpicked legislature which in no way is a body representative of society as a whole.
Resource sharingResource sharing is another contentious issue in our country. Myanmar is a resource rich country, and government revenues come chiefly from selling off resources found mainly in ethnic minority states. As a result, one large and growing barrier to peace is the resource trade.
There is bound to be conflict when the government acts arbitrarily in garnering and profiting from the country’s natural resources. The inequity in resource sharing, the land grabbing and environmental destruction that accompany resource extraction, have further exacerbated the acrimony that already exists over political inequality.
The UN Human Rights Rapporteur Mr. Quintana, whose visit to Rakhine in August 2013, coincided with the local people’s call for resource sharing had this to say: “Addressing the issue of underdevelopment and poverty, including the sharing benefits from the state’s natural resources with local inhabitants, must be considered as vital to finding solutions to the crisis in Rakhine State.”
The Rakhines simply wanted to know what they, as the locals, would get from all the resource trade in their region. It is only natural that they should want a certain amount of local autonomy, budgeting, authority in education and legislation to develop their own communities and state. This call of the Rakhine represents that of all other states – Chin, Kachin, Shan, Karen, Kayah and Mon.
In short, it is important that as our country presses on to resolve a myriad of underlying political difficulties and grievances, it should not be allowed to side-step resource sharing issues. Durable peace and genuine transition to democracy must be inclusive and take into consideration the needs of all ethnic groups within the country.
The Peace ProcessCurrently, our government is pushing for a nationwide ceasefire that would lead to a peaceful settlement with the armed ethnic groups. Those of us who have doubts about the capacity and political will of the government’s professed search for peace should consider ways and means of transforming conflict into lasting peace.
Ceasefires are of no value unless transformed into lasting peace. And for that to happen, civil society needs to be at the helm as the real owner of the process. Armies can agree to ceasefires between themselves, but they cannot make peace – peace requires the people.
We need to look at a comprehensive peace process that involves grassroots people and civil societies, not just military and political leaders. A successful transformation will rely on the extent to which communities are empowered, and the support local organizations get. In other words, strengthening Civil Society and Building Peace are intertwined.
Civil Society OrganizationsYears of mismanagement by successive authoritarian governments and unabated armed conflicts have impacted Myanmar society and paralyzed them. There is no short cut to reverse this, but the fact remains: getting civilians to make their own choices and getting their voices back are the deciding factors in bringing about lasting peace in our country.
For those advocating change in Myanmar, I would caution them not to undermine local initiatives, as the reality is that local agendas are vital to bringing about true democracy and lasting peace.
Interestingly over the last 20 years, scarcity of aid in our country had actually created more room for local agencies to determine eventual programming. Had we been flooded with aid after the 1990 elections, local NGOs like Metta, Myanmar Egress, Paung Ku, Ecodev, Shalom, etc., would not have had the chance to grow and flourish as they have done. It is ironic that now that the country has become more open, more challenges are being faced to strengthen civil society.
To those who think Myanmar civil society groups do not have the capacity to act as agents of change, let me give a couple of case studies:
- A local group of women, self-funded and working as a small group with no staff, launched the Whistle for Help campaign to help young women who faced sexual harassment daily as they bus to school and work. In about a month, the women gathered over 300 volunteers, distributing over 30,000 whistles and information sheets. This campaign was the first led by women for their own benefit in the country’s history, without outside determination of need, funding, or the banner of “women’s empowerment”.
- In the wake of clashes between Burmese government forces and the Kachin Independence Army around Mansi Township in November 2013, up to 3,000 Kachin villagers were forced to flee their homes, trekking through the jungles for days. It was only through the efforts of local NGOs that they were brought to safety.
This incident clearly shows that local NGOs are in a better position to operate more efficiently in assisting the IDPs. They are the lead agencies and have the local context. They are the ones who are able to reach the IDPs in conflict zones, even in the most difficult of times. Because of their efforts, no Kachin IDP has died of hunger. They are, however, very much in need of funding.
Internally Displaced People (IDP)There are currently 500,000 IDPs nationwide, with half of them in Kachin and Rakhine, living in appalling conditions and in need of urgent humanitarian help in spite of the basic help, which local NGOs – above all in Kachin – can and do supply. In addition to providing for the basic needs of these innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire of conflicts, we need to explore existing and potential solutions to ensure their protection and rights.
The Census ProcessAlmost all non-Bamar ethnic nationals have expressed their concerns about the population census process assisted by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). They have expressed doubts about the validity of the government’s official tally of 135 recognized ethnic groups. The census procedure is seen as alienating and breaking up ethnic national identity, and objections have been made to the highest levels of authority.
A centrally controlled process without the full participation of, and dialogue with all stakeholders, should be avoided at all cost, especially in a country ridden with complexities such as ours.
ConclusionTo sum up, the hard work begins: constitutional reform, legal reform, investment reform, redefining the role of the military, tackling systemic corruption, achieving sustainable economic development, restoring rights to public education and health care, preventing human rights and environmental abuses – all of which will take many years. Needless to say, an enabling environment in which civil society can thrive is crucial.
There will be no lasting peace settlement in Myanmar unless there is a just and equitable relationship among the various ethnic groups and faith communities. Failure to do so will only perpetuate long-standing conflicts, human suffering and political crises, with the potential of straining once again, Myanmar’s relations with the international community.
[2]
http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/education-organizations-criticize-govt-education-policy-draft.html
