KAF’s notes and comments on KIO proposal on National Convention

1. The context of the National Convention. We believe the language and tone of voice of the KIO statement are intended to fit into the ambience of the ongoing constitution drafting process. It is not inflammatory and without any trace of belligerence, even when promulgating constitutional provisions and clauses that clearly contradict the current political ideology of the SPDC. It is very well presented. It is intended as input into the ongoing process that is known simply as the National Convention, and the KIO is speaking from within its chamber.

In some news comments about the statement we have noticed the word "amendment" used; the KIO is not asking for a draft constitution to be amended, it is giving points for discussion and reasons why the stipulated provisions and clauses need to be in the constitution to be drafted.

2. There are three intended audiences for this proposal. In addition to the leaders of the SPDC, the KIO wants other groups and organizations, especially the ethnic nationality communities, and the Kachin nation to know what it is trying to do.

3. The message that serves as the foundation. We find that the underlying theme of this statement from the KIO is the issue of political rights, especially insofar as the rights concern ethnic national communities. In our judgment, the spirit of this statement is a recapitulation of the Spirit of Panglong, 1947. We want to bring out three specific themes that the KIO appears to pursue with tenacity.

First, current SPDC plans contain some sort of ethnic national territorial entities as units within the Union, whether called a state, a special region or a special self-governing area. The KIO statement is that some form of self-government is already implicit in this form of recognition of ethnic nationality entities. Therefore the right of self-government within these entities must be fully articulated, and protected from interference, whether from unconstrained federal power, or from the units currently called "major divisions". As currently conceived, the "major divisions" and ethnic nationality "state or regions" appear virtually identical in empowerment. However, the legislative functions in each of these areas will be vastly different.

The KIO's reasoning is that, whatever the "major divisions" are in SPDC plans, they must be different from ethnic national constituent governments because they do not share the same needs; further, for the same reason, the authority of the Union government must not allow it to interfere directly in state affairs. The KIO is tenacious about the need to protect the rights of constituent ethnic nationality governments from the acts of other unit governments.

Second, the right of ethnic nationality communities to make laws that concern their culture, history, language and literature, etc. This issue is about substantive provisions of the constitution allowing a self-governing community to make necessary laws without external interference. It is a fundamental right agreed upon by all founders of the Union in 1947 at Panglong. The KIO insistence on self-government rights is a continuation of a plan first laid down in the Panglong vision of 1947.

Third , the form of democracy must be a genuine federal system of democracy, and it must be properly stipulated as such in the constitution, and implemented in government. The constitution must precisely instruct all citizens that it is the responsibility of each to protect this right to create a democratic society. This is necessary to avoid mistakes of the past.

KAF Aim

Our aim here is merely to convey a sense of the scope and depth that are inherent in the KIO vision about the constitution to be written. There are other points and nuances, but we feel that we need not dissect the statement any further than this.

Kachin-Americans & Friends , U.S.A., Inc., for Democracy and Human Rights in Burma (KAF), a 501(c)(3) not-for profit organization