[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Mediation/Dialogue and present situ



21-Apr-98

re: mediation and future dialogue in Burma

The greatest obstacle for a dialogue in Burma, like in many other
conflict situations, is the Burmese military in not recognizing the
legitimacy of the other parties -- especially National League for
Democracy. In this context, the self-empowerment of NLD or the
democracy movement mounting pressures upon the junta should not,
in my view, be considered as the signs of moving away from
reconciliation. These are necessary steps to enhance the legitimacy
and to raise profile of NLD, which is to create an environment
conducive for a dialogue with the military. While the measures are
being taken, the NLD, on its part, must always open doors to the
military for negotiation.

Therefore, I do not think the NLD can have any policy division
between self-empowerment and --if there is any-- a rather subdued
conciliatory stance. Personally, I am more concerned about whether
all the members of NLD understand the way in which its political
power to be being exercised.

The difficulty in finding the acceptable outside mediator can be
attributed to the Burma's tradition of political isolationism.
One of the difficulties is that we may not find any single mediator
acceptable to both parties. Whether may this be genuine or  be just
a posture, the military, for example, opposes any international
involvement as the political interference to Burma's affairs. Other
problem is concerning with a rather casual approach, to my personal
view, by NLD towards negotiation with military. 

The general role of a mediator is not only to reduce hostilities among
the disputing parties; it also include setting agendas for the 
discussion/negotiation. I am rather worried whenever ASSK, U Tin Oo & 
U Kyi Maung said "We are open to anything (hence, no preset agendas for
talks?) etc." NLD-ECs often viewed the role of an outside mediator so 
as to reduce hostilities between parties as unnecessary. On a positive 
side, this stance by NLD might create less psychological barrier to the
other party to enter negotiation. However, in any negotiation, there
have to have the agenda for the discussion. To this end, we - the groups
from outside of the country - have made every efforts in identifying
and resolving the fundamental political issues in dispute. This,
hopefully, may contribute towards greater conciliation process in
Burma.

Recent efforts by ASEAN countries, especially the Philippine, to
mediate two parties should be considered as progress. On the other
hand, we in the democracy movement should be pushing towards
collective mediation (i.e. stream of intermediaries) by UN, US,
ASEAN and Japan. Since the current climate do not allow one single
acceptable body for mediation, this may be the only alternative.
I am hoping that the recent change of refugee policy by Royal Thai
Government may become a starting point for United Nations in particular
to become formally involved in the process of political reconciliation 
in Burma.

With best regards, U Ne Oo.
-------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Mikio Oishi wrote:

> Dear friends,
> 
> I will have a seminar on the present situation of Burma at Sarawak

> junta. NLD has not realised its short-term goal of starting a genuine
> dialogue with SLORC/SPDC. For this reason, different views on the
> achievement of the movement as well as different opinions about the next
> step to be taken seem to be emerging within the pro-democracy camp.
> Particularly, there appears to be a division between those who would stick
> to the present strategy of self-empowerment and confrontation and those who
> countenance more conciliatory and/or  "realistic" approaches. 
> 
> In this way, both camps are now under huge pressure, which may cause an
> internal division on each side with significant consequences for the future
> course of the conflict. 
> 
> *****
> The above is my understanding of the present situation of Burma. Now my
> questions are:
> 
> (1) Is there any desire or mood among the pro-democracy activists to look
> for a third party who could mediate the two camps? It is true that NLD led
> by DASSK has mediatory principles, and that because of these principles NLD
> qualifies as a national mediator/reconciliator (actually, the pro-democracy
> movement itself can be regarded as part of national reconciliation process
> of Burma), but in this particular stage of the process, NLD has to play a
> role of a party to conflict rather than mediator. It is quite difficult for
> the same group to play as a party to conflict and as a mediator at the same
> time. It seems an outside(s) is needed to mediate the two camps in the
> present impasse. 
> 
> 
>