Perspective on November 2003

National Reconciliation on Burma: Why and Who

By- Banya Hongsar

November 18, 2003, Bangkok – Gunfire spreads over inside Mon State while Regional Leaders enjoyed auspicious event, Asia Pacific Economy Cooperation in Bangkok. A few of them said Burma needs a national reconciliation. It is believed that regional leaders mean a "dialogue" between military authority and leaders of opposition party should be assumed in the country.

Burmese ruling Generals have determined to call a new "Convention and Election". The question is whether the new National Convention grants space to raise reconciliation at the assembly. The ruling Burman authority shows no interests to reconcile with its opponents whatsoever the cost involved in the game. Burma observers may need to see a big picture on the issue and this article is part of the argument.

The "national reconciliation" became as political agenda after United Nations passed a resolution on Burma to engage in a ‘tri-partite dialogue’ in 1994 but Rangoon ruling junta rejected the resolution. However, Ruling State Peace and Development Council conducted cease-fire deal with over fifteen anti-government ethnic armed organizations. The SPDC claims that the cease-fire agreement is a first step towards national reconciliation. In the notion of foreign leaders and observers alike, reconciliation is only a process between ruling military authority and National League for Democracy, a key opposition party led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. In other words, they have assumed that democratic force and the ruling military authority need to compromise on power sharing in the government.

"The objective of national reconciliation is to pave the way for the society, through which a foundation for peace, freedom and justice can be laid down within the framework of the rule of law" Aung Htoo, General Secretary of the Burma Lawyer Council urged recently on Legal Issues Burma Journal.
A real picture is that both opposition party and borderland based ethnic armed organizations have a common goal in pursue of elimination of ‘military rules’ in the country. Despite ASEAN leaders supported Burma’s Prime Minister General Khin Nyunt’s Road Map to bring Burma to democratization, his political plan does not contain a program for a "national reconciliation" process to opposition organizations.

Burmese political forces both home and in exile commonly agree that Burma needs a "national reconciliation" to solve political deadlock. Furthermore, the ruling junta has rejected any attempts to launch political campaigns in the capital and elsewhere in other non-Burman states. Rangoon military hard-liners led by Senior General Than Shwe adopted zero tolerance policy to his opponents including senior leaders of NLD and other urban based non-Burman political leaders.

Since members of the ruling junta led by USDA (Union Solidarity and Development Association) attacked pro-democracy force in May in upper Burma, Sr.Gen Than Shwe kept his lip tighten and disappeared in public media for a few months. He installed new appointed Prime Minister to tackle and defense any internal and external political attacks after the massacre took place in Depayin town. The newly appointed senior military officials hold a strong views that "national reconciliation program" is not an agenda in their books rather they determined to crackdown all element of opponents in the country.

According to non-Burman politicians, Khun Tun Oo, a spokesman of United Nationalities Alliance to RFA radio recent week, if the ruling generals want to do reconciliation in the country they can do firstly bi-partite between SPDC and NLD and secondly a tri-partite including ethnic political forces. However, the Rangoon ruling junta forced local public to support its political agenda so call "Seven Points Plan". In fact, military rulers have designed its plans to hold military dominated new Convention and new Election. No national reconciliation process is raised to bring on table by the ruling military authority.

In a desire of general public, Burma is to be ruled by elected civilian government and they have fought to eliminate the military rules. It is a hard task for civilian politicians to bring military rulers on the table unless both sides have political trust. There are three political actors in Burma; the military authority, (State Peace and Development Council) the civilian led democratic force and non-Burman nationalities’ political force.

"Whatever form a transition in Burma takes, it is critical that communities are empowered to see truth, justice, and an end impunity," Patrick J. Pierce wrote on his new released booklet "Transitional Justice Basics" on Burma.
Burmese community as a whole has lack of access to state information and political affairs. Non-Burman states are isolated to central government while military affiliated members dominate the ethnic community. Unless the ruling junta grants legal access, information gateway, media outlet and both national and international Truth Commission in the country, a dream of national reconciliation is bleak.

In a desire of non-Burman political leaders and their affiliated organizations alike, Burma is only gained peace under a genuine federalism and builds a new Union with a new structure. However, the ruling military officers totally rejected this agenda for over four decades. There is other argument whether national reconciliation is part of political change in the country. Can the ruling junta achieve any degree of reconciliation tasks without any access to grant for equality and political legitimacy to its opponents?

"Genuine federalism is the best option to bring about national reconciliation and pave the way for rebuilding Burma as a modern nation," Dr. Thaung Tun, representative of the NCGUB for UN Affairs wrote in 1999 in Legal Burma Journal.

While civil society is under attack in the country, a dream of national reconciliation process is far to the case. Journalist, writers and comedians are jailed for _expression their own opinion while local language and cultural community is banned to print and publish their native language if contains any criticism to the ruling authority. Buddhist monks are warned to stay away from politics while farmers are oppressed for not providing paddy to local government troops. Furthermore, local people especially rural community is blocked to gain services at government legal firm when their lands are confiscated by Burmese troops for military deployment. Obviously, the government soldiers rule the country in every corner of the territory.

"The politics of transition and national reconciliation are complex and require an equal measure of firmness and flexibility" Professor Cho-Tzang Yawnghwe concluded on his article- Burma and National Reconciliation: Ethnic Conflict and State- Society Dysfunction in 2001 at Burma Legal Journal.

Overall, Burma has sufficient native experts and other human resources to conduct national reconciliation program in the country if the military shares common goal with political wills to civilian people. Currently, there are hundreds of politicians, lawyer, policy makers and great thinkers in the Burmese community both home and exile. The ruling generals do not grant free communication access for every civilian to initiate reconciliation process in the country.

Burma extremely needs a channel of communication towards national reconciliation, peace and democracy before it hosts chairmanship of the summit of Association of Southeast Asia Nations in 2006.

==================End================