Secession (article) - part 2 of 2

[m.win@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

SECESSION AS AN ETHNIC CONFLICT RESOLUTION :   THE CASE OF  THE SHAN STATES
(Part 2 of 2)

Presented by: Sai Myo Win



3. 5. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, LEGITIMACY AND THE RIGHT TO SECEDE

The United Nations' Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his speech on the
Occasion of the Week of Solidarity with Peoples of All Colonial Territories
Fighting for Freedom, Independence and Human Rights states the
interrelatedness between self-determination and human rights as follows:-

Ultimately, the struggle for independence, for self-rule - for the right of
a people to be a master of it own destiny - is the struggle for human
rights. Let us therefore remember that while human rights begin with
independence, they do not end there. It is the solem duty of all new
nations - whether in Africa or Asia - to honour their independence by
rewarding their peoples with genuine human rights for all, including the
right to development and all civil and political rights. (41)

The issue of the legitimacy of the states and governments is outlined in
the UNPO Statement On Self-Determination as below:-

States exist for the sole purpose of fulfilling three fundamental tasks: 1)
to protect the population of the state; 2) to promote the economic , social
and cultural welfare of that population; and 3) to represent the interest
of that population externally, that is, internationally.
Where a state, or its government, does not fulfill these functions over a
period of time, but instead represses or even kills the people it is
supposed to protect; destroys their culture, economically exploits them; or
represents other interests other then those of the people, then that state
or government lacks legitimacy in respect of the whole population of the
state or that section of population which it oppresses. (42)

The right to secede is beautifully expressed by J. M. Mukhi in his speech
titled: The Right to Self-determination and International Responsibility.

There has been debate and discussion as to what is the ambit of this
phrase: "the right to self-determination". Does it include the right to
secede? Of course it does. There is a god-given right to secede. A people
remain in political association, whether a confederation, a federation or a
unitary state, by consent and under certain basic assumptions. When these
assumptions are belied, when they are subject to tyranny, to intolerable
treatment, of course they are entitled to break free. (43)

In this connection, it is imperative to highlight the atrocities and human
rights abuses of the Burmese military regime in the Shan States, which in
turn, will illuminate the illegitimacy of its rule.

The Burmese military is one of the most notorious regime still in power and
its atrocities and human rights abuses have gained so much attention that
international bodies such as the United Nations, the International Labour
Organization and European Union have been condemning it on a regular
routine basis, year in and year out. The Burmese military regime on its
part has become so accustomed to such condemnations that it neither cares
nor does anything to improve its human rights violations' records. Instead,
it goes on with its regular routine of ethnic suppression and crime against
humanity, which seems to be the only policy it can think of to maintain
power. It will, of course, be impossible to list its wrong-doings in this
short presentation. Thus, only a summarized version of the regime's human
rights abuses within the Shan States is presented here, although it is by
no means the only ethnic group that has to bear the brunt of the Burmese
military's atrocities in an area known to the world at large as Burma.

Population displacement and forced relocation in the Shan States are not
new. They have been common occurrences since the Burmese Army first came to
the Shan States in 1950 on the pretext of driving away the Chinese
Nationalist (KMT) Kuomintang, who were pushed into Shan States from Yunan
Province of China by Mao Tse Tung's troops. All kinds of human rights
violations were committed by both the Burmese Army and the KMT alike.

The situation became worse after the military seized power in 1962 and
resistance forces sprang up all over Shan States. In their attempts to
crush the forces of the opposition, one of the strategies of the Burmese
Army has been the "Four Cuts" operation aimed at cutting the food, funds,
intelligence and recruits provided by local villagers to the resistance
armies. This often involved forcing whole village tracts to move to
strategic sites which could be closely guarded. Throughout the past thirty
years, large areas of Shan States have been repeatedly disrupted in this
way. However, the massive forced relocation begun by the (SLORC) State Law
and Order Restoration Council in the Central Shan States in 1996 and
continuing up to this day is totally unprecedented in scale.

Since March 1996, the Burmese military regime has forcibly relocated over
1,400 villages throughout 7,000 square miles in Central Shan States. Over
300,000 people have been ordered to move at gunpoint into strategic
relocation sites. No assistance has been provided to them.

The relocation program has intensified during 1997 and 1998, with new areas
being forced to relocate, and existing relocation sites being forced to
move again. Vast rural area of 11 townships have been turned into
depopulated "free-fire" zones.

During 1997 there was a sharp increase in the number of extrajudicial
killings by the regime's troops, with repeated massacres of villagers
caught outside the relocation sites. In one township alone, ( SHRF) Shan
Human Rights Foundation has documented the killings of over 300 relocated
villagers.

The villagers in the relocation sites are used for forced labour by the
junta's troops. They must work as porters, build roads, and perform tasks
such as digging ditches or building fences at the nearby military camps
without food or pay.

As a result of the relocations and the attendant human rights violations by
the Burmese military against the Shan villagers, some 80,000 of them have
fled to Thailand. (44)

Apart from all such abuses, the Burmese military regime is employing a
special tool of war against non-Burman ethnic populations : the rape of
non-Burman ethnic women.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Burma stated in January, 1998 that Burmese
troops have been abucting "increasing numbers of women , including young
girls and the elderly" who have become victims of rape and other abuses.
Based on his report, the UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution on Burma
of April 1998 expressed "deep concern" about violations against women in
Burma, "in particular forced labour, sexual violence and exploitation,
including rape."

The Shan village of Kaeng Kham in Kunhing was rocked by this epidemic of
military rape. According to a 1996 Shan Human Rights Foundation report,
sexual attacks at Kaeng Kham village often occurred at night after the
village men left for work at a local logging company. The highly specific
report states that : "A platoon of troops from LIB 519, led by Sergeant Hla
Phyu are stationed at Kaeng Kham village. At night, while the men were
away, Sergeant Hla Phyu and his men repeatedly raped the women, going from
house to house. Every adult women in this small village has been raped."

A 1997 Shan Human Rights Foundation report documents the mass murder of
dozens of Shan women and girls after being gang raped by Burmese soldiers.
According to the report, on September 15, 1997, 120 troops led by Captain
Htun Mya found 42 women and 57 men hiding in the forest in Kunhing
township. The troops gang-raped all the women for two days and two nights.
After that, all the 99 villagers were reportedly killed by the soldiers.(45)

In July 1998, a commission of the International Labour Organization
concluded after a year long study that Burma's regime -in particular its
military - engages in forced labour on a massive scale. This "gross denial
of human rights" involves pressing women and children to walk ahead through
suspected minefields, build roads and perform other dangerous and unpaid
tasks. Resistance is met with torture, rape, beatings and murder. (46)

The Burmese military has been trying to achieve its policies of
"Burmanization", coupled with "ethnic cleansing" and "forced assimilation"
by making life unbearable for the Shan people. This involves all kinds of
harassment: violation of all their rights (including livelihood and means
of sustenance), the systematic employment of terror, the encouragement of
lawless behaviour of the Burmese armed forces and the killing of
individuals and most commonly the mistreatment of women (rape) so as to
humiliate the men and psychologically scar the children.

If the human rights abuses and atrocities committed by the Burmese military
regime could be seen as injustice and thus should be given the right to
secede, according to almost all theorecticians of secession, including
Allen Buchanan's Remedial Rights Only Theories and J. M. Mukhi's god-given
right to secede, then the Shan has every right to opt for separation from
the now defunct Union of Burma.


3. 6. THE SHAN CASE AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Important facts related to the Shan case could be listed as follows:-

1. The Shan States has been the ancestral home of the Shan people from time
immemorial.
2. It is a separate and distinct political, national and cultural entity
throughout history; and into the present.
3. On the 11th February 1947, it was unanimously decided by all the Saophas
and representatives of the people of the Shan States held in Panglong that
the Shan National Day be celebrated on the 7th February every year (47)
4. The Shan States entered into political union with Burma on an equal
footing, under a treaty, the Panglong Agreement in 1947. The fact that
there was a treaty signed between the Shan States and Burma underlines and
emphazises the Sovereignty of the Shan States and its people.(48)
5. The 1948 independence granted by the British was in effect a
joint-independence by Shans and the Burmese. Co-independence was understood
by all parties, including Burman leaders, as being the key operative word.
6. The 1952 martial law proclamation and the Burmese troops' invasion
ostensibily to fight the Kuomintang invaders but actually to subjugate the
Shan States, is naked aggression by one nation against another, which is
still in process.
7. The 1961 federal reform movement, spearheaded and proposed by the Shan
State Government and supported by all other nationalities, is in effect the
last legal effort and political solution, to ward off the growing ethnic
conflicts between the Burmans and non-Burmans by  introducing amendments to
the Union Constitution which was federal only in form but unitary in practice.
8. The unilateral action of the Burmese military regime in abolishing the
Constitution of the Union of Burma in 1962, automatically frees the Shan
States and the Shan people from all contractual obligations, both legal and
constitutional, to that union.
9. Since then, the conflict in Shan States may be defined as international,
rather than purely domestic or internal.
10. The ongoing gross human rights violations, forced relocations, forced
assimilations and genocides perpetrated by the Burmese military regime are
crimes against humanity.

Given such circumstances, the Shan States has no other choice than to
strive for self-determination to preserve its national identity and to
realize the well-being of the Shan people.
Futhermore, judging the Shan's right of secession from theorectical point
of view, the following assessments could be made.

(a) The Shan's secession case is identical with the Remedial Rights Only
Theories advocated by Simon Caney, for the Shan have suffered injustices at
the hands of their occupiers and thus, is entitled to secession which is
the appropriate remedy. The clear evidence of human rights abuses and
atrocities committed by the Burmese military regime inflicted upon the Shan
populace is there for all to see.


(b) The Shan case is also in line with the special rights to secede, within
the context of Remedial Rights Only Theories. The Constitution of Union of
Burma includes the right of secession for the Shan, after a trial period of
ten years, which has been denied by successive Burmese governments. Thus,
to rectify the unjustified illegal annexation, the Shan States has the
right to opt for secession.


(c) The consent of the governed and the value of one's cultural membership
advanced by Darrel Moellendorf, and the well-being argument of Simon Caney
center around cultural identity and national self-determination.
Accordingly, the suppression of cultural identity of the Shan people
contradict directly with the consent of the governed and a set of their
cultural values.It is clear that the present multinational state structure
of Burma, together with its ethnic suppression policy, is in no way
plausible for the Shan cultural identity to flourish. Thus seccession of
the Shan States could be justified on moral grounds to protect liberty, to
escape severe economic exploitation, to preserve its culture of being
eliminated and to serve as an instrument of self-defense against the
violence of Burmese occupying forces.
 
(d) Judging from the armed and political resistances of the Shan people
from 1957 to the present day and the (SNLD) Shan Nationalities League for
Democracy's attainment of the majority vote within the Shan States in 1990,
(the only election held after the 1962 military coup) but still being
refused their right to exercise political power by the ruling Burmese
military regime, one can conclude that the Shan want political divorce.
Furthermore, the decision on separation or unity could still be made
democratically, as advanced by Tullberg, under the auspices of United
Nations or international community

However, while most of the people would readily agree to the argument of
the Shan's secession issue morally and theorectically, substantial and
practical help has still been lacking, as is the case of each and every
non-state nation struggling to gain international recognition. 

4. THE RECOGNITION OF NEW STATES

Most of the people would agree in justifying the right of
self-determination, theorectically and morally. The Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Actions, adopted on 25th June 1993 by the World Conference on
Human Rights states:-

All people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or
other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference
on Human Rights recognizes the right of the peoples to take any legitimate
action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize
their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on
Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a
violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective
realization of this right.

In accordance with the Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations, this shall not be construed as
authorizing or encouraging any action which dismember or impair, totally or
in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and
independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a
Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without
distinction of anykind. (49)

According to this declaration, the notion of "territorial integrity" and
its entitlement would be only applicable for the governments adhering to
accepted  international norms of human rights and representing peoples of
the whole territory without discrimination of any kind. This would exclude
illegitimate governments, which are violators of human rights from
benefitting from this notion of "territorial integrity".In other words,
under such illegitimate rules, an ethnic group´s right to exercise
self-determination would be met with more flexibility and acceptance, even
if it means "secession". 

But in practice this question repeatedly comes down to that of the
recognition by existing states of new states. At the turn of the century,
James Crawford writes that some fifty acknowledged states constituted the
world community. This number is now approaching two hundred. All of the new
states having been carved out of existing states. This suggests that a fair
amount would have been learned as to how the procedure works. But this has
not been the case. (50)

The result of such deficiency can be detected in the implementation of the
right to self-determination, starting from the end of the Second World War.
Secession in itself is not considered illegal, as is shown by the admission
of Pakistan in 1947 as a member of the United Nations when it split from
British India, and then the admission of Bangladesh as a member when it
left Pakistan. And, of course, the new emerging states can also attest to
this. (51) There were only 165 states in the world before the breakup of
Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Along with the "velvet divorce" between
the Czech and Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia in 1992 and the emergence of
an independent Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993, 19 other new states were
added to the membership of the United Nations between 1991 and 1993 because
of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. (52)

The unevenness of the application of national self-determination can be
observed in the cases of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia on the one
hand, and Biafra independence movement from Nigeria in the late 1960s , on
the other. While the Western powers applied the principle of national
self-determination to formerly communist countries of Europe, the notion of
territorial integrity was considered appropriate for the Biafra
independence movement. In the same vein, while Bangladesh, which broke free
from Pakistan with the help of massive Indian military invasion, has
attained statehood, the Turkish Cypriots, who broke free from the Greek
majority independent state in 1974 with the help of Turkish forces from
Turkey, were refused recognition.(53)

In large part this "postwar" legal muddle over claims to self-determination
arose because they were too often assessed in terms of cold-war advantage
or disadvantage. (54) The same is still true for all non-state nations
struggling for self-determination. Apart from having to fight an uphill
battle against the rule of the game established in favour of existing
states, secessionist movements are required first to establish their own
existence or ableness to exercise sovereignty in the face of powerful
opposition state or states within which they are still located; or at least
a recognized state of belligerency is needed, before application for
international legal rights could be applied. (55)

Thus, the legal response to ethnic demands for self-determination, in the
absence of clear legal rules, could be termed "muddled", although it is not
necessarily to be disparaged. (56)

5. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

This bring the United Nations and the international community to the point
of consideration on how they should go about creating a more harmonious
world atmosphere, especially where resolving the problems of ethnic demands
are concerned. Again, it boils down to the question of "accommodation" with
regards to the right of self-determination.

The role of the United Nations in implementing the right to
self-determination within the mould of decolonization, is clearly one of
the greatest achievements of our time. .

In the 38 years since the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, some 60 former colonial
Territories inhabited by more than 60 million people have attained
independence and joined the United Nations as sovereign members.(57)
However, according to the UN's count, there are still 17 territories left
to be decolonized but the actual numbers, which fit into this category, are
far higher. To neglect this reality and stick to the UN accepted count
would be tantamount to denying that other ethnic conflicts around the
world, which are the major sources of crisis, tensions and conflicts do not
exist.

The argument here is that there is an urgent need for practical and
theoretical innovations, to be able to address the management of this type
of conflict in the interest of peace and harmony in the world. As
decolonization, in all its different aspects, is the key, the first place
to start is to redefine what colonialism is , to better fit the existing
landscape of today's global political conflicts.

Points of discussion should include, among others, the following:-
(a) The Alien Concept and alien-ness should not be limited to only
Europeans and Westerners but should also include African, Asian and Latin
American, irrespective of skin colours.
(b) Maintenance of the former largely, European colonial boundries as
irreversible and sacrosanct  national state boundries should be reviewed on
a case to case basis. This is an unending source of ethnic conflicts
affecting international stability.
(c) The question of geographical separateness or "The Salt Water Doctrine"
between colonizer and colonized should not be the sole factor, but
cultural, ethnic, linguistic and historical factors should be also taken
into account,  in determining the "alien-ness" of the colonizer.
(d) The cases of one colonial regime replacing another are also
contributing factors to many of the existing conflicts in the world today.
A large number of oppressed and non-state nations are experiencing this
type of colonialism, when one dominant ethnic group took over the mantle of
the former colonizer and monopolize state power at the expense of the other
ethnic groups. (58)

Another approach is to advance  the formation of international law, which
might be able to  address the right of self-determination, including the
right of secession. 

In order to be able to proceed forward, the international community could
start with the Remedial Right Only Theories, which as the name implies,
recognize a general right to secede only as a remedy for injustice. The
thrust of the theories has already been presented in the section on
"Theories of Secession". According to Allen Buchanan:

A proposal for an international legal right to secede ought to be morally
progressive, yet at the same time at least minimally realistic. A morally
progressive proposal is one which, if implemented with a reasonable degree
of success, would better serve basic values than the status quo. Preeminent
among these values is the protection of human rights.

A proposal should build upon,  or at least not squarely contradict, the
more morally acceptable principles of existing international law, when
these principles are interpreted in a morally progressive way. If at all
possible, acceptance and implementation of a new principle should not come
at the price of calling into question the validity of a well-entrenched,
morally progressive principle.(59)

Thus, in soliciting the formation of international law capable of
addressing the claims of Rights of Self-Determination, Remedial Right Only
Theories would stand a better chance of success, since the theories advance
a much more restricted right to secede and are less of a threat to the
territorial integrity of existing states. Hence, they are more likely to be
incorporated into international law.(60)

If the said arguments could be entertained and the international community
would be ready to discuss the possibilities of the Remedial Right Only
Theories being incorporated into existing international laws concerning the
right of secession, it would already be doing a great service and justice
to the major portion of the oppressed non-state nations and peoples.

Beyond decolonization, the Security Council had, in the name of
"international peace and security" found it appropriate in 1991 to act to
protect the Iraqi Kurds, creating a "safe haven" in the Kurdish area north
of 36th parallel .(61) Again, the United Nations found it possible to
intervene in ethnic conflicts citing, as in the case of a Balkan war crimes
panel resolution, "obligations and international humanitarian law".(62)

In June 1992, the United Nations Secretary-General submitted to the Member
States An Agenda for Peace, a report presenting an integrated programme of
proposals aimed at identifying potential conflicts, bringing about their
resolution, and building peace among former adversaries in the
post-conflict period. In the area of preventive diplomacy, it was
recommended to increase the use of confidence-building and fact-finding
activities, as well as the establishment of an early-warning system for
assessing possible threats to peace. (63)

Clearly, in spite of all this, the United Nations still has a tall order to
fulfill, if the ethnic conflicts raging around the world are to be stopped
or at least put under control. To do this, the right to self-determination,
which is part and parcel of Universal Human Rights, has to be addressed. In
turn, the United Nations and the international community should begin to
ponder the formation of international laws, institution building and
implementation agencies in this direction, so that the aggrieved
unrepresented nations and peoples' quest for self-determination could be
facilitated.

6. CONCLUSION 

According to Dan Smith, in his "The State of War and Peace Atlas", 43
ongoing armed and open conflicts could be counted, as of 31st December
1995.(64) Of these, the majority falls into the category of ethnic
conflicts, while a lot of latent conflicts are brewing underneath waiting
for eruption. The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO),
which started out with a handful of members now fields 50, as of 1997. In
the asia pacific region alone, the organization claims 15 members. They are
Aboriginals of Australia, Acheh/Sumatra, Bougainville, Chittagong Hill
Tracts, Cordillera (Philippines), East Timor, Eastern Turkestan, Karenni
State, Mon, Nagaland, South Moluccas, Taiwan, Tibet, West Papua and the
Shan States. There are still a lot more unrepresented nations and peoples
outside the UNPO, such as the Tamil in Srilanka, Kashmir and Assam in the
region, just to name a few. Looking at this particular type of conflict
spreading out all over the continents and the dissatisfaction and
unfulfilled yearnings of peoples left out of the international
decision-making process, one can only imagine the difficulties of building
a mechanism capable of tackling the problem at its root. And especially,
when demands of the right to self-determination clash with the notion of
territorial integrity.

But the reality is that the United Nations has been on this track for a few
decades, notably with the implementation of the decolonization process,
with tremendous success for all to see. Under this UN procedure, in the
duration of 38 years, some 60 former colonial territories   inhabited by
more than 60 million people have attained independence, although this might
be limited to the "Salt Water Doctrine" type of colonies.

The point to be made here is that if the international community is ready
to deepen , reform and enlarge the existing institutions to initiate the
commitments of moral obligation, theoretical soundness and political will,
the world will be in a position to advance the notion of
"Self-Determination" which is an accepted and established part of Universal
Human Rights.

To put it in more concrete terms, it will be helpful to restate the UNPO
recommendation made known on the occasion of the conference titled: The
Question of Self-Determination, in 1996.

The international community should assist in the promotion and organization
of referanda, under United Nations auspices, which specifically address
claims of self-determination. An additional idea is to work for the
establishment of a court of arbitration which is constituted to examine
claims of self-determination and to provide binding judgements when the
claims are found to be legitimate and viable. Other options, albeit
secondary in desirability and efficacy, could be Human Rights Council
reporting to the General Assembly of the United Nations and/or an
International Court of Human Rights, a High Commissioner for
Self-Determination, and reorganized Decolonization Committee. (65)




NOTES:

1. S. Caney, Self-Government and Secession : The Case of Nations, in The
Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1997, pp. 352 - 353.
2. Ibid., p. 352.
3. UNPO Yearbook 1996, published by Kluwer Law International, The Hague,
The Netherlands, 1997, p.11.
4. W. Pfaff, The Wrath of Nations : Civilization and the Furies of
Nationalism, published by Simon and Schuster, Touchstone Edition, 1994,
USA, p. 58.
5. The Question of Self-Determination : The Cases of East Timor, Tibet and
Western Sahara, Conference Report (UN, Geneva, 25 - 26 March 1996), UNPO
Publication, p. vi.
6. Ibid., p. xv.
7. S. Caney, p. 353.
8. Raju G. C. Thomas, Nations, States, and Secession : Lessons from the
Former Yugoslavia, in Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol. 5. No. 4, Fall 1994,
pp. 40 - 65.
9. A. Buchanan, Theories of Secession, in Philosophy and Public Affairs,
26(1), Winter 97, pp. 31 -61.
10. Ibid., p. 36.
11. Ibid., p. 49.
12. Ibid., p. 50
13. D. Moellendorf, Liberalism, Nationalism, and the Right to Secede, in
Philosophical Forum, 28 (1-2), Fall - Winter 96-97, pp. 87 - 99.
14. Ibid., p. 90.
See also W. Kymlicka, Multi-Cultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of
Minority Rights, Oxford University Press, 1995, Chapter 4, pp. 42 - 44.
15. D. Moellendorf, p. 91.
16. Ibid., pp. 92 - 93.
17. S. Caney, p. 352
18. Ibid., p. 361.
19. Ibid., p. 361.
20. Ibid., p. 361.
See also W. Kymlicka, pp. 82 - 89 and 105.
21. Ibid., pp. 361 - 362.
See also A. Margalit and J. Raz, National Self-Determination, in Journal of
Philosophy, 87 (1990), p. 449.
22. Ibid., p. 362.
23. Margalit and Raz, pp. 450 -451.
24. S. Caney, p. 362.
25. Margalit and Raz, pp. 451 - 453.
26. S. Caney, pp. 362 - 363.
27. Ibid., p. 363.
28. Ibid., pp. 370 - 371.
29. J. Tullberg & B. S. Tullberg, Separation or Unity? A Model of Solving
Ethnic Conflicts, in Politics and Life Sciences, September 1997, Beach Tree
Publishing, UK., p. 237.
30. Ibid., p. 237.
31. Ibid., p. 238.
32. Ibid., pp. 238 - 239.
33. Ibid., p. 239.
34. A. Buchanan, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort
Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec, Boulder, Colo.:Westview, 1991, pp. 27 - 125.
35. Raju G. C. Thomas, pp. 40 - 65.
36. Historical Facts About The Shan States, Condensed and Revised Edition,
published by the Shan State National Congress, 1994.
37. Document containing proposal for the Revision of the Constitution of
the Union of Burma, submitted by The Shan State, 1961, translated by Sao
Singha, p. 2.
38. UNESCO, International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the
Concept of the Rights of Peoples: Report and Recommendations,1990.
39. Ibid.
See also UNPO Covenant, Article 6(a) in UNPO Yearbook 1996, p. 11.
40. For more comprehensive reading, please see Historical Facts About The
Shan States, pp. 8 - 20.
41. UN Press Release, SG/SM/6571,OBV/47, 22 May 1998. Struggle for
Independence, for Self-rule is Struggle for Human Rights, Secretary-General
States.
42. The Question of Self-Determination, p. 43.
43. Ibid., p. 6.
44. The Shan Human Rights Foundation, Dispossessed, April 1998.
Amnesty International, Myanmar: Atrocities in the Shan State, 15 April 1998.
45. The Nation, Ethnic Cleansing: Rape as Weapon of War in Burma, Editorial
& Opinion, 31 May 1998.
46. ILO, Forced Labour in Myanmar (Burma), Report of the Commission of
Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of International
Labour Organization to examine the observence by Myanmar of the forced
Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), Geneva, 2 July 1998.
The Washington Post, Burma Crackdown, 14 September 1998.
47. Aung Than Kyaw, Shan National Day, Shan National Anthem and Shan
National Flag, in Golden Jubilee Shan State Magazine, published by U Khun
Kyaw (General Secretary), Taunggyi Association, Rangoon, 1997, pp. 33 - 34.
Shan National Flag and Anthem were also approved by the Council of Saophas
and Representatives of the People of Shan State at Panglong, on the 11th
February 1947, which was signed by Hkun Pan Sing, the President.
48. The Panglong Agreement signed on the 12th of February, 1947, paved the
way for the drawing of Union Constitution, which was instrumental in
attaining the joint-independence on the 4th of January, 1948 from the
British. The Panglong Agreement and the Union Constitution together
emphasized the right of the Shan and Karenni to secede from the Union,
after a trial period of 10 years.
49. World Conference on Human Rights: The Vienna Declaration and Programme
of Action June 1993, published by UN Department of Information, NY., p. 29.
50. D. P. Moynihan, Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics,
Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 147.
51. Ibid., p. 151.
52. Raju G. C. Thomas, Nations, States and Secession: Lessons from Former
Yogoslavia, pp. 40 - 65.
53. Ibid.
54. D. P. Moynihan, p. 153.
55. Ibid., pp. 151 - 152.
Raju G. C.
56. D. P. Moynihan, p. 152.
57. UN Press Release, UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan's Statement, 22 May
1998. (SG/SM/657 OBV/47)
58. For more comprehensive reading please see China's Tibet: The World
Largest Remaining Colony, UNPO Publication, 1997.
59. A. Buchanan, Self-Government and Secession: The Case of Nations, p. 42.
60. Ibid., p. 45.
61. D. P. Moynihan, p. 152.
UNPO Yearbook, p. 94.
62. D. P. Moynihan, p. 173.
63. Basic Facts About The United Nations, UN Publication, NY., 1995, p. 29.
64. Dan Smith, Kriege und Konflikte, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH,
Frankfurt am Main, 1997, pp. 90 - 95.
65. The Question of Self-Determination: The Case of East Timor, Tibet and
Western Sahara, Conference Report, UNPO Publication, pp- xv - xvi.








Secession As An Ethnic Conflict Resolution: The Case Of The Shan States
                            By: Sai Myo Win
	

	- 20 -