Burma seat should be questioned

Editorial

by Mizzima News

Monday, 15 September 2008 19:17

When the United Nations considers the petition to strip Burma's junta of their seat in the international body's General Assembly, the United Nations should act on the appeal as an opportunity to jumpstart a flailing mediation process. While commitment to a process is important, as oft repeated by United Nations representatives, such a commitment needs to be confirmed following the adoption of a correct process. Leaving the seat of Burma vacant at the General Assembly is a step along the correct process, a process that is intended to address both the political stalemate as well as the livelihood of the general population. The current United Nations approach, adherence to the moribund "roadmap to democracy" as proposed by the governing generals, holds out no hope that Burma's ills will be fundamentally addressed. Any process adopted by the United Nations must realistically be assessed to be in agreement with the goals of the body – including, in the case of Burma, a meaningful political dialogue and a cessation to rights abuses incurred by Burma's general populace. Supporting the junta's 2010 general election plan, the next step in the "seven-step roadmap," singularly affirms a junta-outlined process and ignores the responsibilities of the United Nations to the country. One responsibility of the United Nations in Burma, often lost amidst a bombardment of political gambits, is to help in alleviating the pervasive poverty across much of the country. An argument for the need to do whatever is possible to address the country's endemic economic crisis should meet with more immediate broad-based support than any wide ranging political affirmation. And here, depriving the Burmese regime of their seat in the General Assembly can be an effective tool at the disposal of the United Nations to pressure the generals to the negotiating table and into reforms in how the country is managed. Talks to bandage the gaping wounds of the Burmese body politic would likely be heated and lengthy, but while such a process of political dialogue is being convened there is no reason for the daily plight of the Burmese population to be held hostage to the exchange. To assist in expediting a dialogue between the junta, opposition parties and the United Nations, the removal of the junta's representative should thus be undertaken for reasons stressing the importance of how a state's authority apparatus interacts with and affects the general populace – as opposed to fixating upon the 1990 election results. This is an important distinction to make, as Naypyitaw would surely be confounded, and treat with ridicule, a United Nations ruling stripping it of its place in the General Assembly and based on a call of respect for democratic norms; not with supporters of the regime – and far from democratic stalwarts – such as Russia and China likely to be seated on the Credentials Committee. Yet the point can be made to Burma's generals, by stressing the importance of how power is exercised, that they cannot simply expect to hide behind the international protection or obstruction of the powerful illiberal governments of today. Legitimacy must be clearly articulated to also derive from how power is perceived to be exercised. However, such an emphasis on the nature of a government's functioning does not ignore the political crisis holding the country in limbo. A vacant seat in the General Assembly, far from assigning good and bad labels to the sides in the conflict, simply acknowledges that there is a conflict which must be addressed. An empty seat thus provides both a reason and a forum for dialogue between disparate parties to the countries prolonged political crisis. This would be a valuable asset in the United Nation's continued involvement in Burma, as the body's current endeavors are sorely in need of further and alternative channels of interaction between competing Burmese voices. Stripping the junta of representation in the General Assembly can thus be inferred as an effective tool to be utilized in reinforcing the United Nation's effort in helping to mediate a solution to the Burmese conflagration. The message would be clear: any Burmese authority desiring to be recognized as legitimate by the international community must understand that how power is exercised is just as, if not more, pivotal than from where the power is deemed to originate. < Prev   Next >