Last Thursday January 24th Chin democracy activist Victor Biak Lian gave a talk on the plight of Burma’s ethnic minorities and the possibilities for a political solution to the repressive dictatorship in Burma. Victor's activist work comes together in three organizations: The National Reconciliation Programme for which he works as a Project Officer; The Ethnic Nationalities Council of which he is a member; and The Chin Human Rights Organization of which he is a founder and a current board member.
Victor’s work deals with questions of how to effect a peaceful transition to a democratic political system in Burma which is inclusive of ethnic nationalities. During his talk, Victor provided an overview of the present options for a negotiated transition to democracy in the context of struggles by ethnic minority peoples. For Victor, the process of political change must be inclusive of the ethnic nationalities living in Burma. In order to understand the plight of ethnic nationalities one needs to realize that 40-45% of the population comes from an ethnic minority group, and that ethnic minority peoples occupy 60% of the land.
The present situation in Burma is characterized by the institutionalized marginalization of ethnic nationalities, organized political repression including large numbers of political prisoners, a massive out-flowing of refugees and migrant workers, and widespread economic mismanagement and corruption.
The refugee situation is especially dire with 153,000 refugees along the Thai-Burma border; 100,000 Rohinga refugees along the Bangladesh border; 60,000 refugees in India; 30,000 in Malaysia, and around one million internally displaced people.
Victor’s talk focused on the current possibilities for an inclusive political solution to the dictatorship in Burma but he wanted to make it clear to the audience that there is a long history of struggle in this direction. One notable precedent of current efforts to negotiate a unified democratic Burma was the 1948 Paulong Agreement which aimed to forge a Union of Burma with participation from the ethnic nationalities living in the country. The Paulong Agreement was not implemented by successive governments after Aung San was assassinated. Ethnic minority peoples has been struggling for self-determination, through wars of insurgency as well as political negotiation, ever since.
At present one can conceive of two main approaches to a negotiated transition to democracy in Burma: the UN approach and the SPDC approach.
The basis of the UN approach is the notion of a Tripartite Dialogue where the three players are conceived as the SPDC, the NLD, and the ethnic nationalities. This dialogue is envisioned as being bolstered by a UN Envoy to Burma who acts as a “peace broker”.
The basis of the SPDC approach is the “Seven-step Roadmap Towards Democracy”. Step One - the so-called National Convention to establish the framework for the rest of the Roadmap - took 14 years to finish. The framework established by the National Convention is set-up as to enable the junta to disproportionately influence the outcome of the Roadmap process. In short, the process has been a sham.
Thus far, neither the UN nor the SPDC approach has yielded very much in terms of concrete movement towards political transition in Burma, but Victor noted that there have been some positive advances in the past few years. In September 2005 Vaclav Havel and Bishop Desmond Tutu published the Threat to Peace Report. This report outlined the case for putting Burma on the permanent agenda of the UN Security Council. More recently, Ibrahim Gambari was appointed as the UN Special Envoy to Burma. Gambari met with ethnic leaders, SPDC representatives, members of the NLD and even Aung San Suu Kyi in an attempt to find a way to make the Tri-Partite Dialogue work. The SPDC continues to resist this vision for reform, but this type of multilateral pressure through the UN system at least keeps the regime on its toes. The National Reconciliation Program works to ensure that ethnic nationalities will be properly represented in any future tri-partite dialogue process.
Victor concluded with four recommendations:
1) Pressure from the “international community” is important and should be maintained (sanctions or otherwise)
2) The Canadian government should be encouraged to accept more refugees – especially children who has been born into camps. The education that refugees will receive in third countries will be important for them to engage effectively as future community leaders in Burma.
3) The “international community” should provide greater assistance to the democratic movement in Burma and along the borders.
4) Canadians should raise awareness of Burma within Canada so that people will continue collective international actions in support of democracy in Burma.
Victor’s work deals with questions of how to effect a peaceful transition to a democratic political system in Burma which is inclusive of ethnic nationalities. During his talk, Victor provided an overview of the present options for a negotiated transition to democracy in the context of struggles by ethnic minority peoples. For Victor, the process of political change must be inclusive of the ethnic nationalities living in Burma. In order to understand the plight of ethnic nationalities one needs to realize that 40-45% of the population comes from an ethnic minority group, and that ethnic minority peoples occupy 60% of the land.
The present situation in Burma is characterized by the institutionalized marginalization of ethnic nationalities, organized political repression including large numbers of political prisoners, a massive out-flowing of refugees and migrant workers, and widespread economic mismanagement and corruption.
The refugee situation is especially dire with 153,000 refugees along the Thai-Burma border; 100,000 Rohinga refugees along the Bangladesh border; 60,000 refugees in India; 30,000 in Malaysia, and around one million internally displaced people.
Victor’s talk focused on the current possibilities for an inclusive political solution to the dictatorship in Burma but he wanted to make it clear to the audience that there is a long history of struggle in this direction. One notable precedent of current efforts to negotiate a unified democratic Burma was the 1948 Paulong Agreement which aimed to forge a Union of Burma with participation from the ethnic nationalities living in the country. The Paulong Agreement was not implemented by successive governments after Aung San was assassinated. Ethnic minority peoples has been struggling for self-determination, through wars of insurgency as well as political negotiation, ever since.
At present one can conceive of two main approaches to a negotiated transition to democracy in Burma: the UN approach and the SPDC approach.
The basis of the UN approach is the notion of a Tripartite Dialogue where the three players are conceived as the SPDC, the NLD, and the ethnic nationalities. This dialogue is envisioned as being bolstered by a UN Envoy to Burma who acts as a “peace broker”.
The basis of the SPDC approach is the “Seven-step Roadmap Towards Democracy”. Step One - the so-called National Convention to establish the framework for the rest of the Roadmap - took 14 years to finish. The framework established by the National Convention is set-up as to enable the junta to disproportionately influence the outcome of the Roadmap process. In short, the process has been a sham.
Thus far, neither the UN nor the SPDC approach has yielded very much in terms of concrete movement towards political transition in Burma, but Victor noted that there have been some positive advances in the past few years. In September 2005 Vaclav Havel and Bishop Desmond Tutu published the Threat to Peace Report. This report outlined the case for putting Burma on the permanent agenda of the UN Security Council. More recently, Ibrahim Gambari was appointed as the UN Special Envoy to Burma. Gambari met with ethnic leaders, SPDC representatives, members of the NLD and even Aung San Suu Kyi in an attempt to find a way to make the Tri-Partite Dialogue work. The SPDC continues to resist this vision for reform, but this type of multilateral pressure through the UN system at least keeps the regime on its toes. The National Reconciliation Program works to ensure that ethnic nationalities will be properly represented in any future tri-partite dialogue process.
Victor concluded with four recommendations:
1) Pressure from the “international community” is important and should be maintained (sanctions or otherwise)
2) The Canadian government should be encouraged to accept more refugees – especially children who has been born into camps. The education that refugees will receive in third countries will be important for them to engage effectively as future community leaders in Burma.
3) The “international community” should provide greater assistance to the democratic movement in Burma and along the borders.
4) Canadians should raise awareness of Burma within Canada so that people will continue collective international actions in support of democracy in Burma.
Questions from the audience
In response to an audience question about the effect of the Burmese junta in Chin State on Chin youth Victor stated that they are not being well served by the national education system. In the Burmese nationalized educational system there is a clear disparity of resources between urban and rural areas, leading to a cycle of disparity in the ratio of urban/rural and wealthy/poor youth gaining access to post-secondary education. As well, ethnic languages are not taught in national schools and leads to ethnic, religious and cultural assimilation.
In response to an audience question about the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO) Victor stated that he was one of its founders. CHRO was established along the Bangladesh-Burma border in 1995 and was later set-up as a charity organization in Canada. As Chin state is fairly isolated the idea behind CHRO was to document the realities of life in Chin state and raise awareness outside of the state. Over the past twenty years military presence and repression has increased in Chin state: in 1988 there was one army battalion in the state, today there are 12 battalions in 33 camps across the state. CHRO documents and reports on issues in Chin state and beyond through its network of field workers in Chin State, throughout greater Burma, India, and Malaysia (where there are currently 25,000 refugees).
Victor concluded his talk by suggesting some websites where audience members can find out more:
Ethnic Nationalities Council (Union of Burma)
http://www.encburma.org/
Chin Human Rights Organization
http://www.chro.org/
Chin National Front
http://www.chinland.org/
The Chin Forum
http://www.chinforum.org/
In response to an audience question about the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO) Victor stated that he was one of its founders. CHRO was established along the Bangladesh-Burma border in 1995 and was later set-up as a charity organization in Canada. As Chin state is fairly isolated the idea behind CHRO was to document the realities of life in Chin state and raise awareness outside of the state. Over the past twenty years military presence and repression has increased in Chin state: in 1988 there was one army battalion in the state, today there are 12 battalions in 33 camps across the state. CHRO documents and reports on issues in Chin state and beyond through its network of field workers in Chin State, throughout greater Burma, India, and Malaysia (where there are currently 25,000 refugees).
Victor concluded his talk by suggesting some websites where audience members can find out more:
Ethnic Nationalities Council (Union of Burma)
http://www.encburma.org/
Chin Human Rights Organization
http://www.chro.org/
Chin National Front
http://www.chinland.org/
The Chin Forum
http://www.chinforum.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment