ETHNIC POLITICAL CRISIS IN THE UNION OF BURMA
(A Brown
Bag Seminar organized by the Council for Southeast Asia Studies, Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut, USA)
By Zo T. Hmung
October 25, 2000
I am honored to speak today
about the ethnic political crisis in the Union of Burma at Yale University, one of the finest universities in the
world. I am thankful to Prof. Michael R. Dove, Chair of the Council on
Southeast Asia Studies, and Prof. James Scott for this kind invitation.
Approximately, Burma has a population of 48 million people.
Of those 48 million, 68% are Burman, and the rest, 32 %, belong to the ethnic
groups such as Arakanese, Chin,
Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon, Shan, etc. These
are only estimated statistics as there is no proper documented information
available inside Burma. The ethnic people have their own
religions, culture, and languages. There are different religions such as
Buddhism, Muslim, Christianity, and Hinduism. Burmans belong to the majority
religion, Buddhism while most
ethnic Chins and Kachins are Christians.
The ethnic political issue is
important to Burma's politics. Because in order to put an
end to civil war, which has spanned over half a century in Burma, the ethnic
political crisis must first be resolved in accordance with the full consent of
the ethnic minority people. Therefore, Burma's political history, especially how the
minority and the majority groups came to live together under the Union
government, needs to be addressed.
The Formation of the Union Government
To be more precise, I will take
an example from Chin history, as I am an ethnic Chin. In 1886, the British
annexed Burma and ruled Burma and India together, from
India, known as the
British-Burma. At that time, Chin territory was an independent territory
with its own political administration, culture, religion, and language, without
any outside political interference. Ten years later, in 1896, the British
occupied Chin territory and ruled it, together with Burma and India, from India. Before the British's occupation,
Chinland had lived independently since time immemorial. In 1937, for
administrative convenience, the British divided her administration into two
parts known as British-Burma and British-India. Chinland was ruled from
British-Burma.
On December 20, 1946, Mr. Clement Richard Attlee, then Prime
Minister of Great Britain, proposed granting independence to Burma at the House of Commons. As a result,
Aung San, who led the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL), was invited
to London to speak on ways to transfer to
independence. Unfortunately, the Labour
Party government in London had not invited any representatives from
the ethnic groups, even though the ethnic people had voiced concern that Aung
San could not represent their will concerning their future status with the
British government.
The British ignored the
complaints of the ethnic groups and asked Aung San to gain consent of the
Frontier Areas (Frontier areas means ethnic peoples). This unfortunate lack of
representation became part of the impetus for the ethnic political crisis that
is so evident today. If ethnic groups were given self-determination to choose
their own destiny by the Labour Party government in London, today's political histories would be
very different from today's ethnic political crisis in the Union of Burma. The
AFPFL had the right to represent the Burmans only, not the ethnic minority
groups.
AFPFL representative Aung San,
for the interim government of Burma, and Clement Richard Attlee, for the
British government, signed an agreement on January 27, 1947, for Burma to become an independent country within
a year. The second step of political strategy for Aung San was to convince the
ethnic groups to join the interim Burmese government during the transitional
period, and to later form the Union government based on equal footing of all
Union members. In order to convince the ethnic minority to join the interim
government of Burma, the AFPFL’s campaign message was to
gain independence from the British first, and then to form a Union government
together. This campaign message of independence became powerful and convincing
as the British had been ruling them for more than half a century. Everyone
wanted to gain independence from British colonial rule.
Within a month of Aung San's return
from England to Burma, representatives of Burma led by Aung San, along with
representatives of the Chin, Kachin and Shan, signed an agreement popularly
known as the Panglong Agreement at the Panglong Conference in Shan State on February 12, 1947. February 12 became Union Day in the
Union of Burma and is observed as an official holiday in Burma. This clearly indicates how these
different groups came together to form the Union. The Preamble of the Panglong Agreement
said: "The members of the Conference, believing that freedom will be more
speedily achieved by the Shans, the Kachins, and the Chins by their immediate
cooperation with the Interim Burmese government"
The basic concept of each state administration in a federal system of government was evident in the Panglong
Agreement. Article 5 of the Agreement said, "full autonomy in internal
administration for the Frontier Areas is accepted."
A common interest, aimed for
mutual benefits, had gathered together the Burmans and the ethnic people to
form a Union government. Based on the Panglong conference, the Right of
Secession was enshrined in the 1947 Union Constitution, Chapter X. This Right
of Secession meant if one of the Union members did not find benefits, or if
they lost benefits within the Union government, that member had the right to
depart from the Union
In my opinion, as the proposed Union
belonged to different groups with different territories/countries, the name of
the government should not be Burma. It should have a different name, one
that could represent all Union members.
Therefore, the Union government,
according to the Panglong Agreement, was of the Union government of the
Panglong signatories, which was based on trust, faith, and mutual benefits. Kio
Mang, a Chin representative from Haka town, Chin State, said he signed the Panglong Agreement
because he trusted in Aung San. The spirit of the Union and a trust of each other mattered to
the Union-founding members.
A Lack of Federalism in the 1947 Union Constitution
After the Panglong Agreement,
the elections to the Constituent
Assembly followed in April. In this very first election, there were 255
seats; 210 seats were for Burmans and only 45 seats went to non-Burman ethnic groups. Like today's
National League for Democracy (NLD), the people mandated the AFPFL, led by Aung
San, as it was the party that took lead in the independence struggle for the
Burmans. The above seats meant that the Burmans could control the
government and drive the Union government in their own way. Chances for the non-Burman ethnic groups at the
central government level were almost nil. However, it was the transitional
period and the priority was about independence from British within a year. My
assumption is that the non-Burman
ethnic groups did not focus on the importance of the election.
In June 1947, Aung San led the
drafting of the Union constitution for the future Union government, in
accordance with the Panglong Agreement, to be a federal system of governance.
Unfortunately, Aung San and his cabinets were assassinated on July
19, 1947, only
one month after drafting had begun. U Nu headed the AFPFL continuance of the
Union constitution drafting by appointing Tin Tut, Sir Ba U, E Maung, and Kyaw Myint. All were Burmans
educated in the law school of Cambridge. U Chan Htoon was appointed as a
constitutional adviser. No ethnic group participated in this constitutional
drafting process. This process began the questioning of federalism in the Union of Burma. U Chan Htoon
himself admitted that the Union Constitution did not represent the spirit of Union, which was federalism. He said:
"Our constitution in theory federal, is in practice unitary."
On September 24,
1947, the Union
Constitution was adopted, becoming effective on January 4, 1948, the date that Burma gained independence. The Union
Constitution was not even federal in theory; it was both unitary in theory and
practice. In a unitary system of government, the government is centralized
wherein the federal state's powers are placed under the central government's direct
control.
I would like to take an example
from the Chin Special Division
to show the relationship between the federal state and the central Union government. For Chin Special
Division, the President of the Union government appointed a Minister for Chin
Affairs from a member of the Union government, upon nomination by the Union
Prime Minister. The Union Minister member designated as a Minister for Chin
Affairs was the head of the government. The power of the Minister's
administration for Chin Affairs was subject to the approval by the Union
government in all state affairs such as education, culture, etc. Therefore, the
Minister was under the direct control of the central Union government. There is
the Chin Affairs Council comprising of all members of Parliament elected by the
Chin people.
The Chin Affairs Council's
function was simply to aid and advise the Minister for Chin Affairs in matters
such as recruitment, postings, and transferring civil services. Therefore, they too were under direct
control of the central Union government. Moreover, there was no provision for
passing bills or the right to legislation of the Chin Special Division in the
1947 Union Constitution. This is called a system of centralized government
putting every power in the center. As such, the Chin people and Chin territory
were in the hands of the Burmese.
Another example is of the Kachin State. Like Chin Special Division, the Kachin
had State Council and a State government. The Minister for Kachin Affairs was
the head of the government. Members of the State Council had partial rights to pass bills of the state. The
problem was, the bills should be presented to the President for approval, and
should be subject to the President’s signature, in order to come into
existence. And the State can only recommend the passing of the law to the Union
parliament.
Therefore, both in Chin Special
Division and Kachin State, all powers, both in State and central
government, went to central government. In a federal system of
government, the State Council or the federal state should be given full authority to function independently, especially in the case of Burma as it consists of different groups. The
federal state should have had the right to legislation, especially in school,
police, press, and other individual state affairs. In addition, the constitution should provide
for the right of passing bills. Neither the Union government nor the central
authorities should control or impose her authorities to federal state council
or the state government. Even in the local government, there should be
self-government, as there are many different dialects and cultures. The federal
government's role should be in the matters of monetary issues, taxation,
foreign affairs, communication, and federal armed forces. All these were absent
in the Union Constitution of 1947. Therefore, the AFPFL, led by U Nu’s
constitution of 1947, aimed to control all power in local, state, and central
government. The Burman majority enjoyed all authority from top to bottom and bottom
to top.
In summary, the 1947 Union
Constitution betrayed Aung San's Union
as well as the Panglong Agreement. This constitutional crisis led to ethnic
groups meeting in Taungyi on February 25, 1961 and submitting a proposal of federalism
to parliament. Unfortunately, General Ne Win took power from U Nu, the Prime
Minister of the Union government, claiming non-integration of the country on March
2, 1962. The
ethnic issues continued to worsen.
General New Win's Policy of Burmanization and Ethnic Cleansing
Right after his military coup in
1962, General Ne Win began
using a policy of Burmanization, also known as assimilation that means making
all ethnic groups into Burmans. He abolished the 1947 Constitution and ruled by
guns. It was now forbidden to teach or learn ethnic languages in the
universities and colleges. Burman cultural dress, such as Taihpung and Longkyi,
became the official dress in offices and schools. In Chin State, there is not a single college or
university. As result, many Chin people could not pursue higher education and
became uneducated. Chins who attended the Mandalay University and Rangoon University were indoctrinated in Burman cultures.
This is a calculated assimilation policy of Ne Win to assimilate all ethnic
groups into Burmans.
As a last resort, more ethnic
minority groups took up arms against Ne Win’s dictatorial rule leaving
families, relatives and friends behind in an attempt to regain their inherent
rights and to safeguard their freedom. Ethnic civilians do not escape the Burmese
Army's eye either because the Burmese Army regards them as supporters of the
ethnic armed forces. They are subject to torture, imprisonment, and arbitrary
arrest along with forced relocation. In order to escape the Burmese Army's
persecution, ethnic groups have fled to other countries for safe haven.
The Revolutionary Council, from
1962 to 1974, and the Burma Socialist Program Party, the one party system, did
not satisfy the majority of Burmans either. The Military regime not only failed
the economic policy of the country, but also spent approximately 40% of the
national income for the defense budget in order to strengthen the armed forces
to fight against the ethnic armed forces. It had been used for ethnic cleansing
activities. Selling her rich natural resources, such as hardwood to neighboring
countries including Thailand could not solve the economic crisis. To
bail out of the economic crisis, the only choice left was applying for the
Least Developed Country status. In 1987, Burma became one of the ten poorest countries
in the world.
One of the main reasons for the
1988 uprising was freedom from the Burmese dictatorial rule, which included
economic freedom, cultural freedom, educational freedom, etc. After the
uprising, the regime doubled armed forces along with the doubling of opium
production. Production of opium became one of the main sources of income for
the Burmese Army. Most of opium production had been taken places in ethnic
areas such as in the Wa area of Shan State. This has not only been a threat to
Burmans and the ethnic groups, but also to the international community. The
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 1999, released by the
Department of State in March 2000, describes Burma as follows: "Burma has been, and continues to be, one of
the world's largest producers of illicit opium. Burmese opium production
doubled in 1989."
The Burmese military regime
regards the ethnic minority groups as the enemy. Two months ago, on August 7,
2000, the Central Executive Committee of the National League for Democracy
(NLD) released a four points statement condemning the burning of Chin Christian
churches, houses, school buildings and live stock. The fourth point of the
statement said: "In Burma today, under the rule of the military
dictators, if you are not a Burman Buddhist you are discriminated against. The
military dictators regard you as an enemy."
This statement truthfully highlights the crux of the political crisis in Burma. For non-Burman groups, and those who
oppose the SPDC, life in Burma is full of fear.
Two weeks ago, I was in Guam interviewing an estimated 280 refugees
from Burma, mostly from Chin State on human rights issues. One thing that
strikes me most concerns Chin girls. I was told that the Burmese Army is
targeting Chin girls for marriage. These girls, and their families, obtain more
opportunity by marrying members of the Burmese Army, and in the same way
Burmese soldiers who marry Chin girls are promoted in rank.
Chin women who married Burmese
soldiers later received military training at the Football ground in Haka. They
are then used to combat the activities of the Chin National Front. These Chin
girls are used for both purposes of assimilation and attacking the Chin people.
A high school teacher at Haka town, Chin State told me another painful story. One day
the Army Captain came to his high school classroom saying that he needed the
most beautiful girl in the classroom. Shortly thereafter, a Chin girl was taken
to his house where it was later discovered she had been raped. Her family said
they were afraid to report the rape to higher authorities knowing there would
be no action taken and the family would surely be accused of lying. These acts
committed crimes against humanity.
Chin State, my State, is
a restricted area. Chin-Americans could not travel to Chin State to visit their
relatives. Foreigners are also not allowed to visit Chin State. In Chin State, approximately
1% is Burman; they are the Burmese Army and their families. Not less than 99%
of the population is Chin people. One percent of the population holds power
over the will of 99% of the population. The U.N. Human Rights Commission’s
Rapporteur Rajsoomer Lallah's report on Burma, released on October 16, 2000, said that the
worst violence committed by the Burmese Army was against ethnic minorities.
This is about ethnic cleansing.
According to the report of the
U.S Committee for Refugees 2000 World Refugee Survey, at least 200,000 refugees
from Burma live in Thailand, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, and other countries. Approximately, up
to one million people are internally displaced.
These figures provide a clear picture of the political crisis in Burma, a crisis, which is about ethnic
discrimination because not less than 90% of those who took refuge outside the
country, and those internally displaced, are the ethnic people, not Burmans.
The International Community's Role
The United Nations General
Assembly has made resolutions on Burma for nine consecutive years. Recently, on
October
10, 2000, the
U.S Congress passed Resolution H. Con 328 including implementation of the
results of 1990 general election. I think the U.N, the U.S, and other
governments have a legitimate and powerful role to play in implementing the
results of the 1990 Elections based on the will of the
Burmese people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 21: 3
says, "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of
government."
The people of Burma have expressed their will, voting
against the military regime and voting for democracy. The international
community has the right to demand that the Burmese military regime transfer
power to the 1990 election winners.
In addition to the results of
the 1990 election, it would also be helpful to concentrate more on the refugee
situation and problems of the internally displaced persons inside the country,
including ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes committed by the Burmese
Army. From a humanitarian ground, the international community has a major role
to play in today’s ethnic political problems in Burma. I strongly believe issues such as
refugees in border areas, and internally displaced persons, would provide a
sense of urgency to the international community, hence speeding up political
change in Burma. Issue such as ethnic cleansing could
become a spotlight in the efforts to implement the 1990 election and its
legitimacy.
The UN High Commissioner for
Refugees Chief Sadako Ogata's recent visit to a Karen refugee camp in the
Thai-Burma border area on October 17, 2000 was very encouraging to refugees
themselves, the ethnic groups, and the democratic forces, including the
international community. Ms. Ogata shared her insights upon her return from the
refugee camp, saying to reporters, "I am sorry to say I was quite
shocked."
Indeed, the SPDC does care about
the international community's voice and pressure. They respond to the truth of
events by disseminating wrong and untruthful news to the international
community. For instance, on October 17, 2000, U Win Aung, Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Chairman of the delegation of the Union of Myanmar to the
Millennium Summit in New York, spoke at the Summit saying, "We do no harm to anyone.
We do not commit any atrocities".Therefore, the involvement and role of the
international community is crucial to motivating political change in the Union
of Burma.
Lessons from the Past
People should look to the
future. However, many lessons are to be learned from the past. One key area is
from a Panglong perspective. From a Panglong perspective, the Union existed because of the Panglong
signatories. The spirit of Panglong should be restored, respected, and honored
because the Union is not of the Burmans alone; rather it
is of all ethnic groups. The Union Constitution should also be a federalism
giving full functioning power to each state government. Equally important, the
Right of Secession should be enshrined in the new Union Constitution.
These were dreams of the Union’s founding members. When we look back at
the 1990 elections, the NLD won 396 seats out of 485 seats. The SPDC won only
10 seats and the other 79 seats went to independent and ethnic groups. In
accordance with this election rule, Pyithu Hluttaw (People's Assembly) was to
form the Union government, which was based upon the size of population. As
Burmans are majority in number, it seems that the Union government will always
go to the hands of the Burman majority and the ethnic groups will have a hard
time defending or proposing their agendas at Union Parliament. Therefore,
"drafting the new Union Constitution of Burma will indeed be a crucial
question for the future Union of Burma."
Conclusion
After the 1988 democratic
uprising, both ethnic groups and Burman democratic forces have joined together
in the efforts to restore genuine democracy in the Union of Burma. There is
hope for the future. This hope should be based on equal footings and equal
status of all the Union members.
The independence hero, Aung San
once said to the ethnic people; "If Burma receives one kyat, you will also
get one kyat". A
Kyat is a Burmese currency. In other words, if a Chin gets one dollar, a
Burmese also will get an equal amount, which is a dollar. It is about the right
to equality. Aung San’s dream for the Union government was based on equality
and self-determination. Unfortunately, the AFPFL governments and the Burmese
military regime ignored Aung San's dream. I believe Burma’s pro-democracy leader, Aung San Suu
Kyi, being the daughter of Aung San, surely knows her father's dream.