05 September 2008 : Burma News Extra
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Endorsing rights of self-determination or staging a comeback as superpower?
David Cameron: We cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun
Suu Kyi refuses to meet liaison officer: junta newspaper
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Endorsing rights of self-determination or staging a comeback as superpower?
South Ossetia and Abkhazia:
www.shanland.org No.01-9/2008 : 5 September 2008
By Sai Wansai
Friday, 05 September, 2008
From the outset, Russia's conflict with Georgia and recognition of its small breakaway territories as independent states might look like the replay of classical clash between territorial integrity of a sovereign state and humanitarian intervention to divert ethnic cleansing or genocide.
While there has never been a clear, defined and accepted norms on secession of a non-state nation to break away from an existing nation-state, with the exception of UN decolonization process, quite a few theoretical approach on how such situation should be handled have been advanced.
The general principle suppose to be quite simple. If a dominant ethnic group in a multiethnic state, in anyway seek to harm, kill a number or portion of a minority ethnic group to assert its influence by force, instead of providing human security, rule of law and equality, the said ethnic group could opt for secession. This is generally seen within the bounds of rights of self-determination for non-state nations and minorities.
In practice, whether the implementation of humanitarian intervention to help free an oppressed people or ethnic group from the tyranny of dominant ethnic group depends on a variety of conditions. But mostly it would roughly fall into the two categories. One is the natural disintegration of central state power, which usually are made up of different peoples, republics or nations like former USSR or Yugoslavia and the other, a super or regional power exerting its will for geopolitical and economical advantages; like Indias invasion of former East Pakistan and consequent recognition of its statehood as Bangladesh, recognition of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) only by Turkish government after its invasion and, recently, the West recognition of Kosovo.
While the recognition of the break-away states from former USSR and Yugoslavia were relatively smooth and easy for the whole international community or UN, the Kosovo, with only 45 countries recognition, and Russia's sole endorsement of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are faced with lack of full-fledged, de facto recognition, which is most crucial for a nation to exist as an equal partner among international community.
It should also be noted that on 28 August, at the annual summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or S.C.O., in Tajikistan, which also includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Russia suffered a significant setback, when China along with four central Asian nations refused to endorse the invasion or recognition of the breakaway provinces from Georgia. To drive their clear message home, statement by the presidents of the member countries reaffirmed their commitment to efforts aimed at preserving the unity of a state and its territorial integrity .
Meanwhile, Russia's close friends such as Belarus, Cuba and Venezuela have refused to toe the line and shied away from recognition of the breakaway provinces.
If we look at the hardship, which Taiwan is facing, in trying to exert its deserved place within international community, stemming from non-recognition of UN as a member state, with all its economic success and well-entrenched democratic institution, we could realise how essential it is to be integrated and accepted as a full-fledged member within the mould of UN.
For all its bravado of protecting its citizenship and hindering genocide and subsequent recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia's real motive is none other than to flex its muscle and reclaim its superpower status, somewhat similar to its heyday of USSR.
While Russia's comeback dream as a superpower is questionable, its worry of encirclement by NATO and American decision to place missile defenses in Russia's neighbouring countries could be genuine. On top of that, the independence of Kosovo was thrust down Russia's throat against its will, which is seen as a huge loss of dignity and humiliation.
Whatever the case, the whole point has much less to do with humanitarian intervention and rights of self-determination but more with the shoring up of Russia's international posture. In other words, the Georgian conflict has been used as a convienent venue to declare its comeback as a superpower and the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili was naive enough to walk into the trap of attacking South Ossetia.
Already speculations are rife and according to South Ossetian parliamentary speaker Znaur Gassiyev, it is only a matter of time before the two small breakaway territories will be absorbed within "several years" or earlier into Russia.
As could be seen, the notions of rights to self-determination and responsibility to protect or R2P, which cover among others, all non-state nations, oppressed peoples and minorities are noble documents internationally endorsed. But the literal implementation of these norms with broad international consensus is still not in sight or rather sketchy. What we have been witnessing are selective endorsement of particular cases like Kosovo, Turkish Cyprus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the like, when the actual world situation is demanding for a set of norms and rules, which all international stakeholders could adhere, accept and process the rights of self-determination in an open, transparent and fair manner.
In end effect, there would be no other way around to tackle such aspiration, other than to formulate a set of recognition criteria of statehood, which all could identify with and live up to implement the said commitment. While large scale and continuous dismemberment of existing states is definitely not an ongoing trend, it would be wise to have something to fall back on for another eventuality like the cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. For failing to facilitate or regulate such urge or aspiration would mean the continuation of decision-making chaos in international political landscape.
But for the present, the Caucasus crisis and its ramification are pointing towards the renewed escalation of superpower rivalry and resumption of Cold War scenario in a new setting, rather than the realisation of genuine humanitarian intervention as prescribed under the assumption of responsibility to protect mode - and rights of self-determination. In other words, the statehood aspiration of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would definitely be a backburner or play a less important role than the Russia's exertion of its superpower status to counter the the American, unipolar position, which it has so far enjoyed, following the disintegration of USSR in December 25, 1991.
# End
The author is the General Secretary of the exiled Shan Democratic Union – Editor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Cameron: We cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun
The Independent
Friday, 5 September 2008
I am a liberal Conservative. Liberal because I believe in freedom, human rights and democracy, and I want to see more of these things in our world. But Conservative, because I believe strongly in the continued relevance of the nation state and because I am sceptical of grand utopian schemes to re-make the world according to a politician's timetable. My instinct is to work patiently with the flow of culture, tradition and history.
For me, democracy is not just a goal in itself. It is our best available mechanism for lasting good government that delivers economic, social and environmental progress. Democracies tend not to go to war with each other. Democracies offer a structure in which differences – including territorial and ethnic disputes – can be debated and resolved. Democracy gives every citizen a say.
But the case for democracy needs to be re-made and refreshed in every generation. Because there are always powerful forces which seek to stifle the universal human hunger for freedom. And I use the word "universal" because democracy is not the property of the West, nor an import to the East, it's not a system we impose, nor a value unique to any culture. They said democracy could never take root in countries like Germany or Japan. They were, apparently, too militarist, too authoritarian, too anti-liberal. But both are now flourishing democracies – standing rebukes to the prejudices of the past.
It has been argued that there's really no appetite for democracy in Asia; that the great nations of the East have their own path which leads away from democracy. Tell that to the people of Burma. Or Thailand. Or the Philippines. Tell that to the dissidents of China.
Today people say that democracy can never take root in Muslim lands, or that democracy is un-Islamic. I regard that view as another prejudice, which seeks to deny human dignity. There is nothing in Islam, and nothing in Islamic nations, which means that those nations cannot be democracies. Not losing confidence in freedom, human rights and democracy: that is the liberal part of liberal Conservatism, and we should welcome the opportunity to make the case for the open and plural society once again. But we should also remember the Conservative part. We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun; that we cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet – and we shouldn't try.
That was what was wrong with the "neo-con" approach, and why I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo-Conservative. I believe we should work steadfastly to advance liberal values wherever we can to build the characteristics of an open society wherever we can, confident that in time, democracy will result.
This is an edited extract from a speech given by the Leader of the Conservative Party in Islamabad this week
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Suu Kyi refuses to meet liaison officer: junta newspaper
Wed 03 Sep 2008, IMNA
Democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest, has refused to meet the junta's liaison officer and her personal physician, the Burmese military government run newspaper The New Light of Myanmar reported.
The Nobel Peace Laureate Suu Kyi refused to meet the liaison officer, Labour Minister Major General Aung Kyi although the military regime arranged for a meeting yesterday evening.
The paper said "Daw Aung San Suu Kyi refused to meet the minister after she met her lawyer U Kyi Win on September 1."
The junta had arranged for her to meet Labor Minister Aung Kyi on the request of the UN Special envoy Ibrahim Gambari who visited Burma (Mynamar) for six days last month.
The paper also said "she was not available to meet Dr Tin Myo Win who was supposed to conduct a medical check-up on her and Daw Khin Khin Win and child."
Suu Kyi (63) who is under house arrest for more than 13 years, also refused to meet Ibrahim Gambari who is negotiating with the ruling junta and opposition parties for national reconciliation in Burma. She is also not accepting food supplies.
Opposition political parties and the Burmese people are worried about her health. But her lawyer Kyi Win who had met her said she has only lost weight but she is in good health.
Her party the National League for Democracy (NLD) is at a loss to explain why she is not accepting food supplies. But analysts have said that she is protesting demanding a dialogue.
Her party has alleged Gambari had wasted his time with pro-junta organizations during his trip.
http://www.monnews-imna.com/newsupdate.php?ID=1156
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
