By Nehginpao Kipgen January 02, 2011 http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/interethnic-agreement-in-burma-long-overdue/414612

On Tuesday, Burma will celebrate its 63rd independence day. It was on this day in 1948, the Union of Burma was granted independence by the British. Over six decades have passed since independence, but the crux of the conflicts within the country still remains unresolved.

The 2011 independence day celebration will differ from the previous years for two important reasons. First, pro-military legislators prepare to dominate a parliamentary government. Second, Aung San Suu Kyi will celebrate the occasion with her National League for Democracy party members, free from house arrest.

The continued conflicts are primarily due to the denial of autonomy or federalism to the non-Burmese ethnicities by the successive Burmese-led central governments. Autonomy has been the core demand of the non-Burmese ethnic groups since independence.

The 1947 Panglong agreement was a turning point in the history of Burma’s modern politics. It established the conditions for independence and shaped the foundation for the Union of Burma.

The ethnic Burmese were aware that a unified Burma would not be possible without the cooperation of the non-Burmese Frontier Areas. And there was a lingering fear, suspicion and doubts in the minds of the Frontier peoples about possible domination by ethnic Burmese in the post-independence era.

To clarify the lingering concerns, Gen. Aung San, Suu Kyi’s father, made a historically significant statement: “If Burma receives one kyat, you will also get one kyat.” This was an assurance that every ethnic group within the Union of Burma would receive equal treatment.

Such assuring remarks from a prominent Burmese leader persuaded representatives from the Chin Hills, Kachin Hills and Shan states to cooperate with the interim Burmese government. Subsequently, 22 representatives from the Frontier Areas (three from Chin Hills, six from Kachin Hills and 13 from Shan states) and Burma proper represented by Aung San signed the Panglong agreement on Feb. 12, 1947.

However, with the assassination of Aung San on July 19, 1947, the Burmese nationalists and ultranationalists interpreted the ethnic minorities’ demand for autonomy as an attempt to disintegrate the Union of Burma.

Because of its failure to implement the Panglong agreement, a decade of Prime Minister U Nu’s government was threatened by insurgency problems. The hope for political autonomy or federalism was then shattered when military leader Gen. Ne Win staged a coup d’etat on March 2, 1962.

Historical facts have demonstrated that the present-day conflicts in Burma are primarily rooted in the failure to implement the Panglong agreement, especially on the question of autonomy for ethnic minorities.

The question now is whether the present leadership of ethnic Burmese groups is ready for another Panglong-type conference to address the concerns of ethnic minorities. Will the new pro-military civilian government or other moderate leaders led by Suu Kyi be willing to revisit the Panglong agreement?

In this regard, Suu Kyi has publicly voiced her support for holding a second Panglong conference. A few days after her release from house arrest in November, Suu Kyi said: “A second Panglong conference addressing the concerns of the 21st century is needed for national reconciliation.”

Because of her being the daughter of Aung San, who himself signed the Panglong agreement on behalf of the Burmese government, ethnic minorities trust and support Suu Kyi more than any other Burmese leader in the country.

Suu Kyi’s comment was later cautiously, or more realistically, restated by the NLD leadership during its meeting with Joseph Yun, the US deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs, on Dec. 10 in Rangoon.

According to Ohn Kyaing, spokesman for the NLD: “The second Panglong conference is intended to give people a strong sense of unity. It does not intend to oppose any person or any organization. Practically, it will be fruitful only if the military participates in it. So, we want the military to participate in it. It’s an affair we need to do in unison.”

But the idea of a second Panglong conference apparently does not interest Burma’s military leaders. In the Burmese-language Myanmar Ahlin newspaper on Dec. 8, the military downplayed the revival of the Panglong spirit. The article said: “If they [the opposition] choose to follow this idealistic way while ignoring the best way [parliament], they should be aware that it will bring more harm than good to the country.”

The military’s lukewarm approach to a second Panglong conference is not surprising. It shows that the mentality of the present military leadership does not differ much from Gen. Ne Win’s era when the military construed federalism as an attempt to disintegrate the country.

Forty-eight years of military rule is a long time, but no military dictatorship in world history has survived. It is only a matter of time as to how and when the Burmese junta will become a footnote in the nation’s history.

As Burma prepares to celebrate its 63rd birthday, ethnic minorities have yet to fully enjoy the spirit of independence day. What matters most is finding amicable solutions to over 60-year-old conflicts. Holding a second Panglong conference will be a promising start for both Burmese and non-Burmese ethnicities alike.

Nehginpao Kipgen is a researcher on politics in modern Burma and general secretary of the US-based Kuki International Forum (www.kukiforum.com).

He can be reached at nkipgen@niu.edu
.

—————————-
Kukiforum News www.kukiforum.com