Editorial : Reconciliation and Negotiation Is it possible with the SPDC ? Editorial: Reconciliation and Negotiation Is it possible with the SPDC? _ By Taisamyone NO! A short answer that doesn’t explain why I think that way. But let’s look at the behaviour of the SPDC. They ignored the NLD’s honest request for dialogue last year and continue in their attempts at marginalising the NLD by reporting more resignations regularly. Soon, the entire population of Burma will have resigned from the NLD and will have to resign again. These actions don’t show any signs that the regime is willing to negotiate. How long has it taken the ILO to get anywhere with reducing the use of forced labour in Burma? After 10 years, the situation first got worse, with the regime persecuting people who had been encoura 房屋出租ged by the presence of the ILO to report forced labour issues, and the success is that the regime says it will stop this persecution. Not exactly showing willingness to negotiate with an international body with very wide-ranging powers, which in my view they should be using now and not waiting another 10 years! Does the SPDC’s process of transition in the ‘National Convention’ show any signs that the regime are willing to negotiate? Anyone who criticizes the process can be thrown in jail because of laws passed specifically aimed at suppressing dissent. The political parties who value their integrity and are prepared to stand up and be counted have openly criticized the NC and withdrawn from the absurd proceedings. If anyone still atte 房屋買賣nding voices opposition, they are quickly dealt with. Is this ‘negotiation’, or is it ‘coercion’ – to fall in line with the SPDC policy. There is no attempt at listening to what the opposition has to say. Cease-fires have been agreed with many armed opposition groups who hoped that in doing so there would be a clear process of negotiation and dialogue leading to a degree of self-determination and a meeting of the political aspirations of the various groups. They have all been deceived by the regime and left with no power and no future. Their views are dismissed at the NC, and if they don’t fall in line with SPDC policy announcements (e.g. denouncing the UNSC resolution, etc.) they are persecuted some more. Is this ‘negotiation’? Discussion betwee 買屋n the SPDC and the non-ceasefire groups lead to unveiled attempts at splitting the freedom fighters (e.g. KNU, DKBA) and causing them to fight one another, or continuing to use terror on armed units and unarmed villagers to bring about the result that they desire. The SPDC do not want to negotiate with the armed freedom fighters, but subdue them and ‘de-fang’ them, drawing them into the useless process of the NC, where they can control the result. The process is not about negotiation – it is about neutralisation. Reconciliation is not a word in the junta’s dictionary. They speak about ‘reconsolidation’, as a process of making their rule entrenched in the political life of Burma and making sure they the lives of the people of Burma are totally controlled by their dictat 烤肉es. They want to rule over the people as a slave nation, people too afraid to question their rule, cowed into submission; all the time trying to paint a veneer of respectability and democracy on government in an attempt to hoodwink the international community and deflect external criticism. Reconciliation in the sense of national politics may be seen as part of a process of a relationship gone wrong, typically as the result of one party causing a rift, by putting an end a relationship of enmity and by substituting for one of peace and good will. Where it has been applied within nations can be exampled with the process of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and the process of reconciliation between Australia’s non-indigenous and indigenous peoples. In each case, the process is s 賣屋tarted with mutual consent and managed by a government determined to make amends and heal the wounds of the past. In South Africa, it was not the government of apartheid that began the process, but the freely elected government of all the peoples of South Africa wishing to bring and end of hatred. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up by the Government of National Unity to help deal with what happened under apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses from all sides. No section of society escaped these abuses. There was a willingness on the part of the new government to begin the process. It seems unlikely at present that the SPDC would begin such a process, and in any case it will be a matter for the freely elected government o 居酒屋f New Burma that will decide on the matter; whether to establish ‘war crimes tribunal’ or a reconciliation process. The gift of reconciliation is with the oppressed, not the oppressor. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has prepared a document covering reconciliation in post-conflict situations, which highlights the key issues in the process; “In post-conflict societies where past injustices remain unresolved, there exists a latent risk of renewed outbreak of violence, years or decades later. Reconciliation has, therefore, become increasingly important in the context of conflict prevention and development co-operation.” The key messages of this document are: _ · Reconciliation after violent conflict is a task for generations of society and cannot be enforced from outside. The 關鍵字排名role of development co-operation in reconciliation is necessarily limited. · Development agencies can, however, facilitate reconciliation processes by creating a favourable, stable and secure environment in which it can take place. · Reconciliation programmes have to be planned and implemented on the basis of a sound conflict analysis and according to the cultural, social, economic and political context of the conflict-affected communities. · Development programmes can be designed to support the search for the telling and documentation of truth, to achieve justice, and to contribute to the healing of individuals and society as a whole. It is interesting that the OECD comprises countries who share a commitment to democratic government and the market economy. The OECD sees that the future of prosperity for any n 烤肉ation lies not just with political stability and peace, but with the participation of the people in government unfettered by authoritarian control. People benefit from an open market economy when government is accountable to the people, when ethical governance holds in government and commerce. What chance do the people of Burma have of establishing anything like an honest and accountable government, when for example this month’s festival of Thingyan - which should be a time for performing meritorious deeds to remit bad actions, but primarily a time for having some fun – the SPDC’s response is to set up a ‘Maha Thingyan Discipline Enforcement Committee’ which requires citizens “to avoid wearing decadent costumes and doing activities that are against the traditions and culture of the nation.” What, we may well ask, will bring the SPDC to th 土地買賣e negotiating table? In the case of South Africa, it was a mixture of UN-led sanctions and internal political pressure. Without a greater amount of pressure from outside (e.g. ASEAN, ILO and the UNSC), the internal opposition will continue to be ‘crushed’. Peaceful transition in Burma is stalled because the regime has friends in high places who place their own short term economic wealth at a higher priority than the freedom of the people of Burma. For further information ‥ Reconciliation ‥ Seven clashes during ceasefire talks between KNPP and SPDC ‥ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ‥ reconciliation in post-conflict situations, ‥ reconciliation ‥ Truth and Reconciliation Commission ‥ Maha Thingyan Discipline Enforcement Committee http://www.tayzathuria.org.uk/bd/2007/4/15/e/ 房屋出租tsy.htm .