5/1/98:PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE IN BURM

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>From daemon Sat Jan 17 13:19:22 1998
/* Written Sat 17 Jan 11:00am 1998 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* ---------------" Transitional Phase and Pros..."----------------- */

To: Our Friends on Internet
Date: 5 January 1998
**************************************************************

THE TRANSITIONAL PHASE AND PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE IN BURMA
********************************************************
I. A Proposal for Interim Administration in Burma
-------------------------------------------------
The current political climate in Burma suggests that the transition to
democracy will best be achieved by forming an interim administration
consisting of the representative-elects of the May 1990 election and the
ruling military authorities. A period of 2--3 years, for example, should
be considered as a transitional period before a complete transfer of power
to the democratically elected government of May 1990 can be made. During
this transitional period, the elected parliament of May 1990 may operate
as a form of {\ Legislature} and may focus its activities on (1) writing
a federal constitution with full participation of the entire population of
Burma, especially of the ethnic nationalities; (2) institutionalising
democracy and democratic practices within Burmese society and (3)
promoting appropriate economic and social policies for a future democratic
Burma. Burma's ruling military authorities, the State Peace and
Development Council (SPDC/SLORC)[1] should retain the {\ Executive
Power} in this transitional period. By separating and sharing the
governmental powers, the military authorities and civilian opposition will
certainly overcome the current political impasse in Burma and also lay a
good ground for future democratic government[2]. 

/*--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--*/

Following is the proposed form of Burma's interim administration:

(i) A period of 2--3 years should be considered as a transitional period,
and an interim administration should be formed; 

(ii) The SPDC/SLORC Cabinet may retain the Executive Power, and the
current Chairman of SPDC/SLORC, General Than Shwe, may be allowed to
remain as the Head of State, in this interim period; 

(iii) The elected parliament of May 1990 will operate as a Legislature and
the Central Executive Committee of National League for Democracy,
primarily, will run the Legislature; 

(iv) Appropriate committees under the Legislature should be set up to
carry out various tasks, including the writing of a democratic federal
constitution, during the interim period; 

(v) To achieve coordination between the Legislature and Executive, the
delegates of military authorities, such as the advisory group of
SPDC/SLORC (nb:there were unconfirmed reports of SPDC/SLORC dissolving the
advisory group soon after the formation of SPDC.), may be included in
various committees of the Legislature; 

(vi) By the end of the interim period, a referendum should be held to
approve the constitution. The decision should also be made by the
Executive and Legislature to hold by-elections to replace
missing/deceased/retired representatives. The transfer of power to the
elected representatives should be made at the end of the interim period. 

II. Forces of Change on the SPDC/SLORC
-------------------------------------
There are various factors contributing towards recent internal structural
changes of the ruling military junta. Following are believed to be the
pressures that forced the military in Burma to change: 

(A) The recommendations by Human Rights Special Rapporteur which
subsequently endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly have
substantially contributed to the change.} The Special Rapporteur, in
particular, has highlighted the illegitimacy and non-constitutionality of
SLORC administration in his report (see A/52/484 recom.(e)) as: 

        (e) Constitutionality and the rule of law should be
        re-established, and SLORC orders and decrees should no
        longer be the basis of law. All laws rendering
        violations of human rights legitimate should be repealed
        immediately, and all laws should be given due publicity.
        The principle of no-retroactivity of penal laws should
        be respected in all circumstances;

The UN General Assembly endorsement of these recommendations implies that
SLORC can no longer remain as a `legitimate body' to make laws(decrees)
and to enforce these laws. The announcement of the new ruling body, the
State Peace and Development Council, can be seen as Burmese military
authorities making a defensive move against this UN General Assembly
resolution. It is worth noting that SLORC changed its name as SPDC on 15th
November 1997, as soon as the Special Rapporteur's recommendations were
made public. (The Special Rapporteur's report was made public on Internet
on 14th November.) The internal division within SLORC that led to calls
for greater cohesion among ruling generals has also been a contributing
factor. 

(B)Financial difficulties that the SLORC government is facing have also
been a significant factor.} According to a recent Economist Intelligence
Unit report(3rd quarter, August 1997), SLORC's foreign exchange reserve
was down to USD 117 million in May 1997. Because of the current financial
crisis in ASEAN region, SLORC has no prospect of securing loans and grants
from its neighbours. Inflation of local currency, {\ the Kyat}, and
rising prices of basic commodities within Burma have also been putting
pressure on SLORC. 

(C) SLORC illusion of political support from ASEAN countries has come to
an end.} Since 1993, SLORC in some way has been looking to ASEAN countries
for solidarity against the West. However, ASEAN's position on Burma is
becoming clearer since the July 1997 admission of Burma as its member.
Many ASEAN countries, privately and publicly, have expressed concerns
about the situation in Burma. The initiatives by Presidents Fidel Ramos
and Suharto are also making SLORC clear about the necessity for change.
The Australian government has also sent a special envoy to express its
views. The European Union is taking a particular stand against the lack of
dialogue and reconciliation in Burma. All of these actions are adding up
to exert psychological pressure upon SLORC, leading to the recent internal
change within the military junta. 

(D) Mounting pressure on SLORC by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
and the Commission on Human Rights about the situation of refugees in
Thailand has also been a significant factor.} Because of the recent
leadership change in Thailand, the Burmese military now has less reason to
hope for solving the refugee problem in Thailand by means of ``bilaterally
arranged forced repatriations''. 

III. Win-Win Solution to the Problem
------------------------------------
The UN General Assembly's resolution, 52/137, undoubtedly has created an
environment conducive to political negotiations in Burma. The resolution
enhances the legitimacy of the National League for Democracy for
negotiation. The current SPDC/SLORC position of avoiding negotiation with
NLD has also been weakened by this resolution. 

SPDC/SLORC's principal interests are (1) to retain the current (executive)
position of government and (2) to receive some form of international
recognition: SPDC/SLORC particularly wishes to ease tension with the
United Nations. Apart from their greed for power, Burmese military
authorities, nevertheless are also wishing to positively contribute to
reconstruction and development of the country. These facts can be
considered as the primary basis in conducting negotiation with SPDC/SLORC. 

The National League for Democracy, on the other hand, is mandated to
administer a democratic government and to build a democratic society. It
specifically has the legitimate right to govern the country in accordance
with the result of May 1990 election. Only because the military junta in
Burma refuses to transfer state power, the elected representatives are to
carry out the next practical task of realising the democratic rights of
Burmese people step by step.  A balanced position of realising the
democratic rights of Burmese people and the political reality should be
considered. 

A possible solution is to form a transitional administration with an 
{\Executive Branch} from SPDC/SLORC and a {\ Legislature } of simplest
form from elected representatives. It should also be made clear,
especially to SPDC/SLORC, that such a transitional arrangement is done by
the authority of elected representatives. SPDC/SLORC must also be made
aware that the wellbeing of such a transitional administration depends on
the cooperation of both parties---the {\ Executive} and the 
{\Legislature}. 

IV. The Legislature: Structure, Operation and Authority
-------------------------------------------------------
{\ A Legislature} is an official rule-making body for a given political
system. In most democratic countries, the entire body of democratically
elected parliament, however, does not operate purely as a 
{\Legislature}. The United States Congress, for example, also selects an
additional body, such as Senate, for legislative functions. 

{\ The Executive} is part of the governmental system which implements
decisions. In some democratic countries, e.g. UK and Australia, the
executive are recruited from Parliament. In some other democratic systems,
such as the United States of America, the executive are appointed by the
President. The Executive and the Legislature, according to the separation
of powers, must be separate bodies[5].

In Burma in this interim period, the elected parliament can function as a
simplest form of Legislature. Much smaller committees, consisting of
representative-elects, professionals from various civil services, the
deputies of ministers and, possibly, the advisory group from SPDC, may be
formed to function in drafting various laws. The elected representatives
should take charge of the duty to communicate these laws and policy
proposals to their own constituent. The draft laws and policy decisions
should be approved/disapproved by parliamentary majority vote. Following
is not a complete list but possible areas on which the legislative body
can focus its actions: 

(i) To repeal various laws (i.e. decrees and orders) by SLORC that render
violation of human rights legitimate; to promulgate laws that safeguard
human rights of citizens, such as legislations against unacceptable forced
labour, forced procurement etc; 

(ii) To review and rewrite (to legalise) various business contracts signed
by companies (note: business contracts that are believed to be directly
linked with drug trafficking or money laundering should be left
untouched.); 

(iii) To make legislation regarding allocation of government revenues, and
when the time is appropriate, to seek loans from IFI; to promote policies
and enact new laws, with the advice of competent agencies, that may
encourage investments and lay foundation for a sound economic transition
in the future; 

(iv) The Legislature (elected parliament), in addition, must also write a
democratic federal constitution. 

These measures are relatively simple in comparison to the activities of
modern democratic governments. However, it must be noted that the Burmese
population in general does not have much experience of democracy and
democratic government. Common practices in democratic societies, such as
public consultation on law-making and collective decision-making, are to
be exercised and must be made to become routine. In other words, Burmese
people must institutionalise democracy and democratic practices. The above
measures, therefore, are to be considered as useful initiatives to gain
momentum for future democratic administrations. 

V. Dialogue and drafting federal constitution
---------------------------------------------
Easing tensions between the military authorities and elected
representatives with regard to control over state power will likely lead
to a tripartite dialogue between ethnic nationalities, military
authorities and elected representatives. A democratic federal constitution
that is acceptable to all parties to the conflict should be drafted at the
National Convention. A few points remain, at this stage, for a successful
dialogue: 

(A) One ethnic minority rebel group, Karen National Union, still needs to
enter cease-fire agreement with the Burmese military (note: the KNU so far
did not sign the cease-fire agreement because of the lack of political
dialogue in Burma); 

(B) The group representing ethnic nationalities, National Democratic
Front, may wish to have a mediator or the presence of outside observers
during the drafting of the constitution[6];

(C) Ethnic nationalities as well as elected representatives need more
education about a federal system of government and how we may integrate 25
percent of military representatives into that federal system (my personal
preference is an Australian or American style federal system of
government. There are, however, many more types of federal system,
including quasi-federal systems, that we could choose from.). 

VI. The Accountability of Executive
-----------------------------------
Since the Executive in the interim period will not be selected by the
Parliament, there is a potential for the Executive to become unaccountable
to the Parliament (Legislature). The Executive may, for example, refuse to
implement measures initiated by the Legislature. On the other hand,
disputes can occur between the Executive and Legislature about the
priority of issues. There is also the possibility of the Executive
(military authorities) trying to maintain its former administrative
structure, i.e. various levels of Law and Order Restoration Council
(LORC), and its civilian support base, the Union Solidarity and
Development Association. In order to avoid potential conflicts, following
facts may be useful: 

(A) The importance of cooperation between the Executive (military
authorities) and Legislature (civilian opposition) in the operation of
interim administration must be given emphasis. The representatives of
ministers (the deputies, perhaps) should be allowed to participate in the
committees for drafting laws and to enable the Executive to communicate
with the Legislature; 

(B) SLORC formed the civilian political wing, Union Solidarity Development
Association, because the Burmese military is anxious to maintain its
political role in the future. The allocation of 25 percent for the
military representatives in future parliament may ease such anxiety; 

(C) The conciliation at grassroots level may need extra efforts in order
to occur. The District, Township and Ward level of Law and Order
Restoration Councils (LORC) may, for example, resist the changes. 

The roles of the democracy movement and international community will be
important to bring the Executive under control of the authority of
Legislature in the current situation. 

VII. Enforcing Agreement:
------------------------
Roles of the Democracy Movement and International Community
-----------------------------------------------------------
Although there are some possibilities of SPDC/SLORC agreeing to the
interim proposal, the rejection by the military cannot be ruled out. On
the other hand, if the proposal is accepted by military authorities, the
Executive must in some ways be made accountable to the Legislature. In
both scenarios, the Burma democracy movement together with the
international community can pressure/enforce the the military authorities
to conform with the agreement.

In case SPDC/SLORC accepts this proposal, the international community 
may take the following measures:

(i) As a recognition of SPDC/SLORC making progress towards dialogue 
and transfer of power, the European Union may allow Burma to participate 
in EU-ASEAN talks;\\

(ii) The President of the  United States of America may ease restriction 
about United States Agencies cooperating with Burmese military in 
illicit-drug eradication program;\\

(iii) The international community, {\em including the business community}, 
have a certain role to play in the elected representatives reclaiming 
and consolidating power. The international community can conduct with 
Burma's interim administration in a way that enhances the legitimacy of 
the democratically elected  Legislature (For example, the businesses 
which entered or are trying  to enter Burma may also seek the approval 
of a responsible committee of the elected Legislature. Such initiative 
was made last year with the Unocal Oil company. My hope is that
the rest of the business community may follow the same procedure
as  Unocal.). The National League for Democracy may creatively coordinate 
its activities with the international community  in this regard;\\

(iv) When the diplomats, especially from ASEAN countries,  conduct  
diplomatic affairs with Burma, they should show a greater tendency to 
take into account the views of the elected  Legislature.

In case SPDC/SLORC rejects this proposal, the international 
community can take the following measures:

(i) The Government of Japan  cancels its debt relief program to Burma,  
worth about USD 17 million a year. Measures should also be taken by
the Government of Japan to prevent Japanese private companies giving
loans to the Burmese military government (for example, last July, the 
Mitsui company of Japan gave USD 150 million private loan to the
Burmese Government.);\\

(ii) The European Union should take a firm stand  not to allow the
Burmese Government participating in EU-ASEAN talks;\\

(iii) According to the UN General Assembly's resolution 52/137 of 12
December 1997, the State Law and Order Restoration Council as well as 
the new State Peace and Development Council are not legitimate 
governments of Burma. Sustained attack on this point should be made 
by international media, especially through  the Burmese language radio 
program of BBC, VOA, RFA and DVB;\\

(iv) The United Nations should prepare to expel the representative of 
SPDC/SLORC at the UN and formally introduce the representative of 
National League for Democracy in UN forums. A series of diplomatic 
attacks should be made through the United Nations by the international 
community;\\

(v) The United States, European Union Countries, Canada, Australia and 
United Kingdom should give formal diplomatic recognition to the 
representatives of the National League for Democracy in their own 
countries;\\

(vi) The international ban on new investments should be introduced.
The possible revenue flows from the Yadana project, for example,
should be seized by the United Nations or Burma's creditors to recover
the debt.

VIII. Non-partisan Statement
----------------------------
Although it is somewhat superfluous, I should like to restate that the
advocacy activity that has been made here does not seek to represent in
favour of any particular political grouping. The suggestions here are
non-partisan in nature, and are made with the beliefs that proposed action
may bring peace and reconciliation to Burma---which is a vital requirement
for solving Burma's refugee problem. 


Footnote 
******** 
[1] Before its name change on 15th November 1997, it was known as the
State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Hereafter it will be
referred to as SPDC/SLORC.},

[2] In many democratic countries, the governmental power is separated into
three legal powers: (1) the rule-making power ({\ legislature}), (2) the
power to apply rules and policies ({\ executive}) and (3) the power to
try alleged offenders against these rules ({\ judiciary}). These three
powers are exercised, at least in theory, by three independent bodies:
{\ The Legislature, The Executive and The Judiciary.}}. 

[5]Though most democratic systems, in practice, do allow the executive to
give input to law-making; the concept of separation of executive and
legislative powers in these governments seems to be introduced by having
another legislative chamber within the system, such as Senate (USA,
Australia) or House of Lords (UK). In addition, there are other
check-and-balance mechanisms between the three powers, such as
constitutional courts (Supreme Court in USA, High Court in Australia), in
order to curb the excess of power of the executive.}. 

[6] According to reports received, the National League for Democracy do 
not wish to have mediator in negotiation with military authorities. 
The ethnic freedom fighters, however, may wish to have some mediator 
and observers on their part in dialogue (i.e. National Convention).}; 

/* Endreport */