တရုတ္အစုိးရပုိင္ ဂလုိဘယ္တုိင္းစ္ ဆုိတဲ့ အြန္လုိင္းသတင္းစာမွာေရးထားတဲ့ေဆာင္းပါးကုိ ရွယ္ခ်င္ပါတယ္။ ေဆာင္းပါးေရးသူက သူရဲ ့အျမင္ကုိ တင္ျပထားတာပါ။ သူကေတာ့ အႀကီးတန္းအယ္ဒီတာတစ္ဦးဆုိေတာ့ တရုတ္အစုိးရရဲ ့ျမန္မာျပည္နဲ ့ပက္သက္တဲ့မႈ၀ါဒကုိ တင္ျပသလုိပါပဲ။
သူေျပာခ်င္တာက-
- ေဒၚစုရဲ ့ဥေရာပခရီးစဥ္ဟာ အေနာက္ႏုိင္ငံေတြရဲ ့ေအာင္ျမင္မႈ ျဖစ္တယ္။ ျမန္မာျပည္သူေတြရဲ ့ေအာင္ျမင္မႈမဟုတ္ပါ။
- ေဒၚစုဟာ ကုလားအေရးနဲ ့ကခ်င္အေရးမွာ ပါ၀င္မႈနည္းသလုိ အျခားတုိင္းရင္းသားအေရးမွာလည္း ပါ၀င္မႈ အားမေကာင္းပါ။
- ဒီမုိကေရစီကုိ အရမ္းေပးရင္ တုိင္းရင္းသားေတြအခ်င္းခ်င္း ပိုလုိ ့ေတာင္ သတ္ႏုိင္တယ္။ ဆုိလုိတာက စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ကုိပဲ သူတုိ ့ႀကိဳက္ပုံရတယ္။
- ရုိဟင္ဂ်ာအေရးကုိ တရုတ္အစုိးရက တုိင္းရင္းသားအျဖစ္ အသိအမွတ္ျပဳပုံရတယ္။ (က်ေနာ့္အျမင္)
- ေဆာင္းပါးတစ္ခုလုံးကိုၿခဳံၿပီး တစ္လုံးတည္း ေျပာရမယ္ဆုိရင္ တရုတ္အစုိးရက လက္ရွိျမန္မာျပည္ရဲ ့အေျပာင္းအလဲကို အထူးမလုိလားသလုိပဲ။
- ဒါ့ေၾကာင့္ ျပည္တြင္းဗီးနပ္စ္ဂ်ာနယ္ရဲ ့အယ္ဒီတာ့အာေဘာ္မွာေတာင္ ဒီေဆာင္းပါးနဲ ့ပက္သက္ၿပီး အတိအလင္း ကန္ ့ကြက္ေနတယ္။
- တရုတ္အစုိးရဟာ ျမစ္ဆုံဆည္အေရးနဲ ့ရုိဟင္ဂ်ာအေရးမွာ အေတာ္ေလးစိတ္ထိခုိက္သြားပုံရတယ္။ သူ တုိ ့အက်ဳိးအျမတ္ ဆုံးရႈံးမွာကိုမလုိလားဘူး။ ျပည္တြင္းထဲက တရုတ္လူမ်ဴိးအေရးနဲ ့ပက္သက္ၿပီးလည္း ေတြးၿပီးေၾကာက္ေနပုံရတယ္။
- ဒါ့ေၾကာင့္ လက္ရွိဦးသိန္းစိန္ရဲ ့ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္လဲမႈ ့ကုိ တရုတ္အစုိးရက လုံး၀ကုိ မႏွစ္ၿမိဳ ့တယ္ဆုိတဲ့အေၾကာင္းကုိ ဒီေဆာင္းပါးက သက္ေသျပေနတယ္။
- တရုတ္ျပည္ဟာ ျမန္မာျပည္ကုိ သူတုိ ့ရဲ ့ျပည္နယ္တစ္ခုအျဖစ္ သတ္မွတ္ၿပီးဆက္ဆံလာတာ ၾကာၿပီ။
-ဗမာျပည္ကြန္ျမဴနစ္ပါတီကုိ လက္သက္ေမြးတယ္။ မဟန္ေတာ့ စစ္အစုိးရနဲ ့ေပါင္းၿပီး တုိင္းျပည္ရဲ ့သယံဇာတကုိ ဂုတ္ေသြးစုတ္တယ္။ အခုလက္ရွိ ဒီမုိကေရစီအေရးမွာလည္း တရုတ္အစုိးရက ကန္ ့လန္ ့သြားမဲ့ပုံေပါက္ေနတဲ့အတြက္ ျမန္မာေတြ သတိရွိဖုိ ့လုိေၾကာင္း အသိေပးခ်င္တယ္။
- ႏုိင္ငံတကာ ဆက္ဆံေရးမွာ စကားႀကီးတစ္ခုရွိတယ္။ ဒါကေတာ့အၿမဲတမ္း မိတ္ေဆြမရွိဘူး။ အၿမဲတမ္းအက်ဴိးစီးပြားပဲရွိတယ္။ ဒီစကားနဲ ့ပက္သက္ၿပီးစဥ္းစားၾကည့္ရင္ ငတ္ျပတ္ေနတဲ့ ျမန္မာျပည္သူေတြအေရးကုိ ကူညီဖို ့ထက္ သူတုိ ့အျမတ္ရဖုိ ့က အဓိကျဖစ္တယ္။
- ကြန္ျမဴနစ္ႏုိင္ငံေတြဟာ ဘယ္ေတာ့မွ ျမန္မာျပည္က ဒုကၡသည္ေတြ လက္ခံခဲ့တာမဟုတ္ဘူး။ လစ္ဘရယ္ႏုိင္ငံေတြကသာလွ်င္ လက္ခံခဲ့တာပဲျဖစ္တယ္။
- ကြန္ျမဴနစ္က လစ္ဘရယ္ကိုၾကည့္မရတဲ့ အခ်ိန္မွာ ျမန္မာျပည္က ၾကားညွပ္သြားခဲ့ႏွစ္က နည္းတာမဟုတ္ဘူး။
- ဒီအေျခအေနကေန ဦးသိန္းစိန္နဲ ့ဘက္ေပါင္းစုံက ႏုိင္ငံေရးအင္အားစု တုိင္းရင္းသားအင္အားစုေတြ အျမန္ဆုံးရုန္းထြက္ႏုိင္မယ္လုိ ့ေမွ်ာ္လင့္တယ္။
- တရုတ္လူမ်ဴိးေတြကုိ ဆန္ ့က်င္ဖုိ ့ဒီစာျဖန္ ့တာမဟုတ္ဘူး။ တရုတ္အစုိးရရဲ ့လုပ္ရပ္ကုိသာဆန္ ့က်င္တာျဖစ္တယ္။
ဘုန္းေက်ာ္
ၾသစေတ်းလ်
Democracy no panacea for Myanmar's woes
Global Times | 2012-6-20 19:50:02
By Ding Gang
Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on sinaweiboShare on google_plusone
More Sharing Services14
http://www.globaltimes.cn/Portals/0/images/email.jpg E-mail http://www.globaltimes.cn/images/print.gifPrint
Illustration: Sun Ying
Illustration: Sun Ying
Myanmar's opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi finally accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which she won in 1991, and delivered a long-overdue speech in Norway on Saturday. The heads of some European countries also met with her, and held state-level receptions for her.
The enthusiasm of these European leaders is more like a demonstration of their "victory," rather than hospitality for Suu Kyi. Suu Kyi belongs to Myanmar, but she belongs more to Europe. In the eyes of these European leaders, without the political and economic pressure they helped exert, Myanmar wouldn't have witnessed the changes it's undergoing today.
However, at this stage, what most deserves attention is probably not Suu Kyi, but the complex ethnic and religious conflict taking place in Myanmar's Rakhine state, and the tens of thousands of stateless Rohingya refugees who live there.
After the clash between the Muslim Rohingya and the Buddhist Rakhine people, some Muslims in Rangoon visited Suu Kyi, in the hope of getting suggestions from Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party. But Suu Kyi didn't seem to have a solution either. She briefly talked with them, and asked them to turn to the government to get the problem solved.
In fact, more than a few ethnic minority groups in Myanmar do not have enough trust in Suu Kyi and the NLD under her leadership. The NLD also lacks the capability to communicate and coordinate in this regard. If the NLD really hopes to achieve ethnic reconciliation, they have to set up more direct contacts and establish mutual trust with ethnic minority groups.
The violent conflict in the Rakhine state disclosed again the soft spot of Myanmar, its ethnic conflicts. This is directly related to the legacy of British colonial rule. In the frontier regions of Myanmar, local ethnic minority groups have never built up a sense of "national identity." And the Rohingya people have never been recognized as an indigenous ethnic group, and have thus become stateless refugees.
The reforms being carried out by the current Myanmese government, especially since the government has achieved a ceasefire agreement with the independent armed forces from many minority groups, are bringing unprecedented hope for the nation's prospects.
However, Myanmar's complex ethnic problems cannot be fixed either in the short term, or by the appearance of one or two opposition leaders. It is a political, economic, social, and cultural issue.
In fact, some Southeast Asian countries have already started to practice the Western-style democracy, but their ethnic conflicts remain. The problems of ethnic integration are still haunting these countries.
What's happening in West Asia and North Africa is also an example. The elections in Egypt may further split the society and even trigger more religious conflict.
True, there are indeed differences between countries in Southeast Asia and those in West Asia and North Africa. One of the differences is that Southeast Asian countries have better conditions of economic development.
Most Southeast Asian countries have already occupied a certain position in the global industrial chain, which provides an economic basis for them to solve ethnic conflicts.
However, a more severe challenge facing Southeast Asian countries like Myanmar is that if they are too heavily influenced by the West and excessively stress Western models during their system transformation, they may face long-term turbulence in the future. A weak, divided government isn't able to solve complex ethnic problems.
What's worse, situations in border areas may get worse and run out of control. Excessive and hasty democracy may bury the fragile reconciliation which has just been achieved.
John Funston, an Australian scholar and expert in Southeast Asian studies, wrote in his book Government and Politics in Southeast Asia (2001) that better governance, including more democracy, is widely seen as progress, but it's not the universal elixir that some believe in. More democracy may provide chances for all kinds of extremists.
The author is a senior editor with People's Daily. He is now stationed in Bangkok. dinggang@globaltimes.com.cn
