ETHNIC NATIONALITIES COUNCIL

The Union Day is worthy of commemorating because it is an event which the military cannot claim to have any role whatsoever in bringing about. As such, military rulers have nothing meaningful to say on Union Day, except to utter empty clich?s about "national unity" as Than Shwe recently did. It is amazing that he should talk about the rights of the "national races," when in fact, no one but members of the top brass have such things as human rights.

The Union Day represents the day when Aung San, Sao Shwe Thaike (the Chaofa-Luang or Prince of Yawnghwe), other Shan Chaofa-Luang (Sawbwagyis), Karenni Sawphyas, Kachin Duwas, and Chin chiefs and leaders agreed to co-found (repeat, co-found) the Union. The signatories of the Panglong Accord were all equal. Each was a leader of some segments of the population, and none were national leaders because "Burma" as it exists after 1948 did not (in 1947) exist before. The Union, therefore, is a joint-venture of all "races" of the Union, which means that the Union is "owned" by all "races", and certainly not by the "race" garbed in green.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is therefore correct when she says that the Union must be based on equality. As of now, it must sadly be said that all "national races" in Burma are, thanks to the military, all "equal" in their plight as serfs.

It is important for all the races, especially for the Bama, to fully embrace the idea of equality. Many Bama seem to think of the Bama as superior, or as "Big Brothers", although there is no evidence of the Bama being superior to any "race", collectively or individually.

However, there are some Bama who talk about the "glorious" Bama history and of "great conquerors" like Bayinnaung, etc., in order to stake a claim on being a "superior race", like the claim made by Hitler and his goons. What they forget is that the Bama then were abject of the king, who were Hitler-like figures. The question is: in what way does being abject serfs of a king make a "race" superior to another "race" conquered by that same king? For there to be equality, the idea of any "race" being "superior" must be treated as useless, foul garbage, or bad breath or B.O.

What is meant by equality amongst "races", when translated in administrative practice? Fore mostly, it means that there must not be a colonial situation of a "mother country" (Pri-Ma) and subordinate states (Pri-Ne). That is, the federal government of any of the constituent states, and its powers must be limited by some agreed upon formula, or by the powers of its member states. The ideal for Burma would be to have seven equal states, with none being superior to the others (like having the status of the "mother state.")

Daw Suu is also right in stating that federalism does not automatically guarantee the right to secede. However, secession cannot be prevented as seem from the secession of thousands of Bama themselves from the Union. Moreover, thousands more Bama harbour a wish to secede. Also, SLORC bosses and military officers all dream of seceding from the Union, and will do so once they have enough dollars stashed away.

Since the Bama themselves have either seceded, dream of seceding, or are looting in order to secede someday, why is secession feared? Why is it considered "bad" -- "bad" for whom? In fact, secession under conditions that exist in Burma since 1962, is inherent in the situations. It can be prevented only if not seceding is not painful and not nightmarish. This is something that our Bama brothers, both bigger and smaller, should stop to ponder whenever they get a reflexive anxiety attack upon hearing the word "secession."

Dated: February 22, 1996