the right to self-1

8/6/2019 The Right to Self-1

1/17

The Right to Self-determination of Non-Burman

Ethnic Nationalities in Burma

By Khaing Aung Win

Introduction

In1914, at the outbreak of the world war I, nearly 90 percent of the

worlds land surface was colonized by half a dozen of European nations

including Russia. In their colonization, the European colonial powers

integrated separated nations or peoples into a uniting state for their

administrative, economic and military purposes. However, those separatenations or peoples possessed different languages, ethnicities, religions and

common heritages or cultures.

Between 1945 and 1960, when nationalism arose and decolonization

accelerated through violent or non-violent means in a colonized and

integrated state in Asia or Africa, the European colonial power transferred

power to the one of the nations or peoples, which seemed to be dominant of

other nations or peoples in a colonized and integrated state , leaving other

nations or peoples to be colonies of the dominant nation or successor to theformer European colonial power on decolonization.

This allowed exploitation of subordinate nations or peoples by the dominant

nation or successor to the former European colonial power on

decolonization. Those subordinate nations or peoples who are still subjected

to extreme national oppression, political domination and economic

exploitation by the successor nations to the former European colonial

powers , are Hidden Colonies. ( In the context of Burma, the Burman

nation is a dominant nation or successor to the former British colonial

power and the subordinate nations or peoples as Arakan (Rakhaing), Chin,

Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon, and Shan are Hidden Colonies in the so-called

Union of Burma.)

When the nations or peoples of the Hidden Colonies claim the right to self-

determination , the successor to the former European colonial power

oppresses them, violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms of

them, suppresses their cultures, religions, languages and other attributes of

the identity valued by them under the pretext of the so-called national

security, sovereignty , integrity and non- disintegration of the so-calledUnion.


2/17

Self-determination in International Law

(1) The Charter of the United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations, which was established in SanFrancisco on 26 June 1945, contains the right to self-determination of

peoples. Article 1(2) of the Charter states that one of the purposes of the

United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on

respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of

peoples..

The article 55 instructs the UN to promote higher standards of living,

solutions to health and cultural problems, and universal respect for

human rights with a view to the creation of condition of stability well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relation among

nations on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-

determination of peoples.

The framers of the Charter of the United Nations, thus, identified self-

determination as one of the purposes of the UN organization. Moreover,

although they did not construct the Charter in a manner that would

serve an effective means for the use and expansion of the principle itself,

they did identify self-determination as a major objective of the newworld organization.

(2) The United Nations Covenants on Human Rights

The UN Covenants on Human Rights the International Covenant on

Economic , Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights were concluded on 16 December 1966.

They entered into force on 3 January 1976 and 23 March 1976,

respectively. The first article of the two Covenants is identical.

Paragraph 1 of Article (1) of each reads: All peoples 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.

If one analyzes the above article, one finds that the right of self

determination includes the following elements:

1) The freedom to determine political status; 2) The freedom to pursueeconomic development; 3) The freedom to pursue economicdevelopment; 4) The freedom to pursue cultural development.


3/17

According to paragraph 1 of Article(1), all peoples are entitled to freely

determine their political status, and economic, social and cultural

development. In other words, every people or nation is free to establish its

own political institutions, to develop its own economic resources, and todirect its own social and cultural development, without the interference of

other peoples or nations. A people or nation that is not free from colonial or

domestic oppression cannot exercise its inalienable right to freely determine

its political status and freely pursue its economic, social and cultural

development.

(3) Declaration on the Granting Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples

The UN General Assembly made a Declaration on 14 December

1960 (Resolution No.1514(XV) entitled, Declaration on the

Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples :

The Assembly had considered the passionate yearning for

freedom in all dependent peoples, the increasing conflicts resulting

from the denial of or impediments in the way of the such peoples,

the needs for putting an end to colonialism, the irresistibility andirreversibility of the process of liberation, the emergence in recent

years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and

independence, and the historical fact that all peoples have an

inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their

sovereignty and integrity of their national territory. After

solemnly proclaiming the necessity of bringing to a speedy and

unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and

manifestations, the General Assembly declares that:

1) The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination andexploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is

contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is impediment

to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2)All peoples have the right to self-determination ; by virtue of thatright they freely determine their political status and freely pursue

their economic, social and cultural development.

3)Inadequacy of political, economic , social or educationalpreparedness should never serve as a pretext for delayingindependence.


4/17

4)All Armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directedagainst dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to

exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete

independence; and the integrity of their national territory shall be

respected.5)Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-self-GoverningTerritories or all other territories which have not yet attained

independence, to transfer all powers to peoples of those

territories, without any condition or reservation, in accordance

with their freely expressed will and desire, without any

distinctions as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to

enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6)Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the nationalunity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with

the purposes and principles of the Charter

of the United Nations.

7)All states shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions ofthe Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of

equality , non-interference in the internal affairs of all states,

and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their

territorial integrity.

This Declaration fostered to accelerate the decolonization movements inAsia and Africa. Till June, 1945, the UN had fifty members against one

hundred and eighty four in early 1994; the additional one hundred thirty

four member states emerged as independent countries during the past

four and half decades as a result of national liberation movements and

the de-colonization processes, which had been either constitutional or

militant in various colonial or semi-colonial territories of the world.

The break-up of former Soviet Union into fifteen indepent states, similar

process in Yugoslavia have legitimized national resurgence on a grand

scale.

Czech and Slovak nations followed the suit in quick succession

peacefully. Chechnya, conquered by Russia in 1864 declared

independence on 6 September and 23-25 November, 1990 from Russia,

but Russia government does not accept it. There has been massacres in

the tiny land of a few lakhs . A fragile peace agreement has been reached

on 30 July, 1995 between the two belligerent parties. Chechnya contests

the annexation by way of conquest in the remote past. The1960 UN

Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries andPeoples affirmed peoples right to freedom from colonial rule.


5/17

4) The Declaration on Friendly Relations

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning FriendlyRelations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the

Charter the United Nations (GA Resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970)

contributed to the formation of a set of general rules concerning the

right to self-determination. There was however a split among

commentators with regard to the legal standing of the right proclaimed

in the Declaration.

However, it seems that there is consensus about the binding character of

those provisions on which a broad measure of substantial andunreserved agreement was provided. These are 1) peoples under colonial

or alien domination have a right to self-determination, i.e. to attain the

status of sovereign states or any other political status freely determined

by themselves; and 2) people under racist regimes have the right to

internal and external self-determination either by achieving self-

government or seceding from the racist state.

A number of international law authorities have asserted that the right to

self-determination may ground a right to unilateral secession in a third

circumstance deriving from an interpretation of paragraph 7 of the

Declaration , which reads as follow:

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or

encouraging any action which would 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 self-

determination and thus possessed of a government representing the whole

people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or

color.

Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total

disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other state

or country.

Despite the formulation of this provision in the form of a saving clause, it

connotes the recognition of the right to self-determination also to

peoples within existing states, as well as the necessity for governments torepresent the governed. The latter outcome is reached by an a contrario


6/17

reading of paragraph 7. It is therefore read in light of the states duty to

promote respect for an observance of human rights and fundamental

freedoms in accordance with paragraph 3. Thus, if peoples within

existing States are treated in a grossly discriminatory fashion by an

unrepresentative government, they can claim self-determination withoutconcern that arguments about territorial integrity will defeat their claim.

The underlying rationale of the Saving Clause of the Declaration is that

when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-

determination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise this

right by secession.

5) The Vienna Declaration

The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action that was adopted in1993, by the UN Conference on Human Rights ( which uses virtually the

same language as the Declaration on Friendly Relations) recognizes the

right of all peoples to self-determination states that, this shall not be

construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would

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 any kind.

This paragraph imposes a requirement of legitimacy on a state invoking

the principle of territorial integrity against a self-determination claim

which threatens that integrity. This means that a state that oppresses,

destroys or unduly exploits a people or community instead of protecting

it or representing its interests has no legitimate right to invoke the

principle of territorial integrity against that people or community. Astate that gravely violates its fundamental obligations to its citizens loses

the legitimacy to rule over them. This also applies with respect to a

states obligations towards a distinct people or community within its

boundaries.


7/17

Internal and External Self-determination

By internal self-determination is meant participatory democracy: the

right to decide the form of government and the identity of rulers by thewhole population of a state and the right of a population group within

the state to participate in decision making at the state level. Internal self-

determination can also mean the right to exercise cultural, linguistic,

religious or ( territorial) political autonomy within the boundaries of the

existing state.

By external self-determination is meant the right to decide on the

political status of a people and its place in the international community

in relation to other states, including the right to separate from theexisting state of which the group concerned is a part, and to set up a new

independent state.

The Holders of the Right to Self-determination

The international legal instruments on self-determination grant the right

of self-determination to a people. The UN Commission on Human

Rights still decline to define the word a people, the term acquires

more precision in the Charter of the United Nations. But it was

thought that the term a people should be understood in its most

general sense and that no definition was necessary.

Indeed, formulating a wholly satisfactory definition of a people for

the purpose of determining a groups right to self-determination is byno means a simple task. Several factors must be considered in order

to make a fair judgment. The primary considerations would seem to

be that:

(a) a people must be seen as a contingent of two elements. Theobjective element is that there has to exist an ethnic group of persons

linked by common history. A random group of persons, lacking any

common tradition, cannot be categorize as a people. There is also a

subjective basis to a people for it is not enough to have an ethnic

link in the sense of past genealogy and history. It is essential to have a


8/17

present ethos or state of mind. (e.g. the will to live together and to

continue common tradition.

(b)A group must possess a focus of identity sufficient for it to attaindistinctiveness as a people. (e.g. language, religion, and culture)

(c)A group must demonstrate close connections to a particular territory.There could be no effective right of self-determination without a place

in which it can be exercised.

(d)Denial of a groups claim for the right to self-determination wouldcause great harm to the group.

The International Commission of Jurists proposed the following

elements to identify who a people is in dealing with the secession of

East Pakistan ( present day Bangladesh) from Pakistan in 1970 :

(a)a common history;(b)racial or ethnic ties;(c)cultural or linguistic ties;(d)religious or ideological ties;(e)a common territory or geographical location;(f) a common economic base and(g)a sufficient number of people.

In 1989, the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for theElucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples identified a people

as:

A group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the

following common features:

(a) a common historical tradition;

(b) racial or ethnic identity;

(c) cultural homogeneity;

(d) linguistic unity;

(e) religious or ideological affinity;(f) territorial connection;

(g) common economic life.

The UNESCO experts further stated that the group as a whole must

have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a

people, the key subjective element common to other legal definition of

peoples. The people must be of a certain number, which need not be

large but must be more than a mere association of individuals within a

state, according to those experts, who considered the existence of


9/17

institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics

and will for identity to be of importance.

The Case Study( The plight of non-Burman ethnic Nationalities in Burma)

Historically, there had never been a Burma state when the British

conquered Kingdom of Arakan in 1826. As noted by Furnivall and others,

Kingdom of Burman co-existed and frequently waged wars with the

Kingdom of Arakan, Kingdom of Mon and with the Shan Princes andKings ( See J.S Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice, Cambridge

University Press,London,1948 p.p 12).After final colonization in 1886, the

British colonial power created a State of Burma, bringing Kingdoms of

Arakan, Burman , Mon and other separate nations as Chin, Kachin, Karen,

Kayah and Shan to form a single unit i.e. State of Burma. More specifically,

the British had created a State of Burma bringing Burma Proper and the

territories of non-Burman ethnic Nationalities in 1930s.

Before the independence of Burma in 1948, there was crucial problem of

redefining the relation between the Burman and non- Burman nations such

as Arakanese ( also known as Rakhaing), Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah,

Mon and Shan whether the territories of non-Burman nations were to be

incorporated in a united Burma, and if so under what conditions of regional

autonomy, or whether the territories of non-Burman nations were to be

accorded the Right of Self-determination, and of separation as independent

states.

On 12 February 1947,General Aung San, the Burman leader of the

independence struggle in Ministerial Burma and the leaders of non-Burman nations met at Panglong Conference in Shan State.

General Aung San promised that the separate ethnic homelands in the

Frontier Areas be joined to Ministerial Burma as equal partners in a Union

of Burma to hasten the process of achieving independence from the British.

Thus, they reached an agreement known as Panglong Agreement, which

recognized the equality, voluntary association, and the right to self-

determination of non-Burman ethnic nation-states and the Burman nation-

state in the Federal Structure as Nation made up of nations, and provided

the basic principles for the establishment of future Federal Union.


10/17

On 19 July 1947, General Aung San was murdered together with most of

the cabinet ministers of Interim Government of Ministerial Burma, and

U Nu took the leading role of the Burmas politics in the place of General

Aung San.However, U Nu-led AFPFL betrayed the fundamental principles

for the true Federal Union laid down by the General Aung San and leadersof non-Burman ethnic nationalities at the Panglong Conference, and

adopted a constitution which was favorable to the hegemony of the

Burmans over non-Burman ethnic nationalities. According to the 1947

constitution adopted by the U Nu-led AFPFL, non-Burman ethnic nations

as Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan lost their right to

self-determination.

The so-called Union of Burma formed by the U Nu-led AFPFL was, in

reality, unitary and colonial in structure. Therefore, when the so-called

Union of Burma gained independence from the British on 4th January in

1948, the Burmans completely monopolized legislative, judiciary and

administrative powers and run the whole machinery of government of the

so-called Union of Burma, reducing the non-Burman ethnic nationalities to

colonies. For non-Burman ethnic nationalities, independence of the so-

called Union of Burma means substitution of the Burmans domination in

the place of the Britishs domination.

In 1958,the right of Shan and Kayah ethnic nationalities to secede from the

Union after 10 years of independence of the so-called Union of Burmaguaranteed in the 1947 Union constitution was denied to them. As a

precaution, U Nu, the then Prime Minister of the so-called Union of Burma,

invited General Ne Win, the commander-in-chief of Army, to form a

caretaker government to restore law and order for a period of two years in

1958.

In his campaign for general election of February 1960, U Nu had promised

Arakan and Mon nations the right to form autonomous States within the

Union.(however his promise was never fulfilled). From 1948 to 1962 , in theparliament debates, the MPs of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities

demanded to amend the sham Union Constitution to be genuine so that

non-Burman ethnic nationalities could enjoy their right to self-

determination as the promise made to them before independence of Burma

by General Aung San and the Burman AFPFL leaders.

Moreover, on 25 February 1962, the leaders of non-Burman ethnic

nationalities at the historic Taunggyi Conference in the southern Shan

State, and unitedly demanded to return to the spirit of PanglongConference to amend the 1947 constitution so that disintegration of the


11/17

Union could be prevented. However, highly chauvinistic Burman military

officers led by General Ne win took over the state power by staging a

military coup on 2 March 1962.

The coup leaders dissolved the democratically elected government andParliament, arrested and jailed the president of Union, the Cabinet

members and the leaders on non-Burman ethnic nationalities who were

attending the Taunggyi Conference . They revoked political freedom and all

democratic rights, and abolished the 1947 constitution. General Ne Win

justified his act of military coup by alleging that the Union of Burma was

being torn apart by the non-Burman ethnic nationalities, and the military

seized the state power to save the Union from disintegration. The non-

Burman ethnic nationalities take the view that this act abolished the legal

instrument that bound their homelands to the Union, and they still consider

their homelands and their peoples to be independent nations and peoples

annexed by the Burman State by use of force. (i.e. aggression).

In 1974, a new constitution was adopted by BSPP regime controlled by the

Burman military led by General Ne Win , but without consent of non-

Burman ethnic nationalities. A lot of political leaders of non-Burman ethnic

nationalities were arrested and put in the jails for long term in order to

implement the new constitution of 1974 without the will of non-Burman

ethnic nationalities. The 1947 constitution also denied internal self-

determination of non-Burman ethnic nationalities.

In 2008, after holding the Burman military-manipulated National

Convention for about 15 years without participating democratically elected

MPs of NLD and UNLD, who were elected in the May 1990 general

elections, the Burman military one-sidedly adopted a constitution which

allows the Burman military to perpetuate its stay in power. According to

the 2008 constitution designed by the Burman military( SPDC ),the non-

Burman ethnic nationalities were denied their right to internal self-

determination.

Continually denial of the right to internal self-determination of non-

Burman ethnic nationalities by the successive Burman military regimes is a

major cause of long lasting civil wars in Burma. By continually denying the

right to internal self-determination of non-Burman ethnic nationalities , the

Burman military dictators are the instigators of the civil wars in Burma.

The non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma have been suffering untold

miseries since the independence of Burma from the British in 1948 underthe successive Burma regimes policies of racial oppression and economic


12/17

exploitation. Their native languages were outlawed almost became extinct.

Their religious freedoms were denied. All forms of their political

movements for their right to internal self-determination were crushed and

are still being crushed through the military and police apparatus.

After 1988 democracy uprisings in Burma, the military junta allowed

formation of political parties in Burma. In the May 1990 general elections,

the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD) ,umbrella political

organization of non-Burman ethnic nationalities won 67 parliamentary

seats. The UNLDs policy stood on democratic rights for all citizens,

political equality of all ethnic nationalities , and the right to self-

determination of non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma. It was the

second largest political organization in Burma after NLD led by Daw Aung

San Suu Kyi. The UNLD and its member political parties of non-Burman

ethnic nationalities were dissolved and declared illegal by the military junta

of Burma in 1992.

The natural resources and economic bases in the territories owned by the

non-Burman ethnic nationalities are exploited for the interest of the

Burman military forcing millions of the people of non-Burman ethnic

nationalities to live in a condition of absolute poverty. When the peoples of

non-Burman ethnic nationalities claim the right to self-determination

established in the UN Charter and international law, the Burman military

oppresses them, violates the Human Rights and fundamental freedoms ofthem, suppresses their cultures, religions and other attributes of identity

valued by them under the pretext of the so-called national security and non-

disintegration of the Union.

The successive Burman military regimes claim to save the country from

disintegration accusing the non-Burman ethnic nationalities of seeking

separation or secession from the Union. In reality, the non-Burman ethnic

nationalities have never claimed any right to separation or secession fromthe Union. They claim for only internal self-determination within the

framework of authentic Federal Union. They want to exercise themselves

executive, legislative, and judicial powers of their own peoples while

remaining within the authentic Federal Union.

The peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities do not want to live in a

country where the relation of the Burman to non-Burman ethnic

nationalities is that of master to slave. They do not want to live in slavery

and subjection. They want to enjoy everything other nations or peoplesenjoy. They want to pursue their political , social, economic and cultural


13/17

development. They want to enjoy their right to self-determination embodied

in the UN Charter and the rights prescribed in the two other major

international covenants: the International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights which both entered into force in 1976.

The inability of the UN to involve itself in the situation of Burma has

allowed a continuance of civil wars and Human Rights violations in Burma.

This inability of the UN can be attributed to the weakness of the right to

self-determination established in the UN Charter and International Law.

The right to self-determination established in the UN Charter and

International Law is still disputable and not applicable to the small nations

as non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma and many other oppressed

nations and peoples in the world. There are approximately one hundred

and fifty national liberation movements in the world today. Their aim is

national self-determination for their peoples, who seek varying degrees of

political autonomy within (i.e. the right to internal self-determination) , or

outright independence from the respective sovereign States. The right to

self-determination established in the UN Charter and International Law

should be replaced by more rational and fairer ones that take into account

the needs of oppressed nations and peoples like non-Burman ethnic

nationalities in Burma and other Hidden Colonies.

The UN and international system should also be democratized to maintainPeace and Security in this world. On 9

thJanuary 2007, the United States

submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. The draft

resolution called on the military government of Burma to begin substantive

dialogue with all political leaders and national ethnic groups. It also called

for the release of political prisoners including democracy leader and Nobel

Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent more than a decade under

house arrest. Nine members voted in favour, three abstained and three ,

including China and Russia , voted against the motion. But ultimately the

vetoes by China and Russia failed the resolution from being adopted. Thevetoes by China and Russia have allowed continuance of conflicts and

injustice in Burma. The undemocratic right to veto in the UN system should

be abolished in order to promote peaceful implementation of the internal

right to self-determination of the oppressed nations and to maintain peace

and security in the world.

The non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma have been undergoing a

continuous process of oppression by the successive Burman military

regimes since 1948, and are being deprived and denied of any meaningful


14/17

exercise of their right to internal self-determination commensurate with the

relevant provisions of international conventions. The main features of the

successive Burman military governments policy pursued in the territories

of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities are: 1) a total blockage of the

peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities from a meaningful realizationof their political, economic, social and cultural development; 2) systematic

discrimination and the commitment of gross Human Rights violations;

3)systematic commitment of crimes against humanity or war crimes. { see

the progress report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human

rights in Myanmar ( Burma) presented to the 13th

session of the UN Human

Rights Council ( UNHRC) by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights

in Myanmar (Burma), Tomas Ojea Quintana.}

Conclusion

Each of the non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma ( Arakan, Chin,

Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan) has its own distinct characteristics such as

language, ethnic identity, culture and historical tradition. Each group has

its own territory. Before the colonization of the British, they were separate

independent nations with different administrative systems. Arakan and

Mon were kingdoms, and Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah and Chan were

emirates. The British , during its colonial rule, created a State of Burma,bringing Kingdoms of Arakan, Burman, and Mon, and other emirates as

Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah and Shan together to form a single unit in

1930s.

It is obvious that the non-Burman ethnic nationalities in Burma ( Arakan,

Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan ) are the holders of the right to

self-determination stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations and

International Law . Each group is entitled to both internal and externalself-determination respectively. However, Their right to internal self-

determination has been denied by the successive Burman regimes since

1948.

Nowadays, they are subjected to extreme racial discrimination and

oppression under the rule of the Burman military regimes ( SPDC).Under

its oppressive rule, Burma holds the worst record of Human Right

violations on earth. The peoples of non-Burman ethnic nationalities havebeen victims of extra-judicial killings, widespread arrest , torture, forced


15/17

labour, forced relocation, mass refugee movements, incommunicado

detention, denial of the right of freedoms and unfair trials.

The successive Burman regimes have oppressed the definable groups(Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon and Shan) as peoples,

violated their Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, excluded their

representations from decision making on matters of well-being and

security of them, suppressed their culture, religion, language and other

attributes of the identity valued by them, and denied their right to internal

self-determination since 1948.

In all these situations, the definable groups ( the non-Burman ethnic

nationalities of Burma) as peoples are entitled , as a last resort, to the

right to external self-determination ( secession) respectively , and the ruling

Burman military regime ( SPDC) has no legitimate right to invoke the

principle of territorial integrity against the non-Burman ethnic nationalities

according to the International Law ( see the Declaration on Friendly

Relations, 1970).

Khaing Aung Win

Member

The Board of the Patrons

Arakan National Council

19 1 2011

References

1) J.S Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice, London: Cambridge

University Press,1948,pp.12.

2) The Implementation of the Right to Self-determination as a Contribution

to Conflict Prevention: Report of the International Conference of Expertsheld in Barcelona from 21 to 27 November 1998; Organized by the


16/17

UNESCO Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace and the

UNESCO Center of Catalonia.

3) N.Sanajaoba, Right of Oppressed Nations and Peoples, Omsons

Publications, New Delhi,1996.

4)Dajena Kumbaro, The Kosovo Crisis in an International Law

Perspective: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and NATO

Intervention (Final Report), Contact Information: Rr Pjeter Bogdani,

No.7.Katirana, Albania, Tel/Fax 00355 4258215;250206,

5) Maya Abdullah, The Right to Self-determination in International

Law(Scrutinizing the Colonial Aspect of the Right to Self-

determination),Department of Law, University of Goteborg, May 2006.

6) Galina Starovoitova, Sovereignty After Empire: Self-determination

Movements in the Former Soviet Union, United States Institute of Peace,

Peace works No.19. First published November 1997.

7) Castellino Joshua, International Law and Self-determination: The

Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession with Formulations of Post-

Colonial National Identity, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, The Hague, 2000.

8) The Charter of the United Nations

9) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

10)The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

11)Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and

Peoples; General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV), 1960.

12) The General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law

Concerning Friendly Relations Co-operation among States in Accordance

with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution

2625(XXV),1970.


17/17

the right to self-1

Documents