The armed conflicts in Burma should be observed for achieving peace through protecting human rights and adhering to the rule of law. In the aftermath of the 1962 military coup, the Tatmadaw aggrandized its power and embedded its military institution, with or without a constitution, insofar as the military exists as the most powerful state institution in the country. While practicing rigid centralization and causing disagreements among both democratic and ethnic resistance groups, the Tatmadaw has created divided and fragile societies in a weak state, resulting in the commission of the gravest crimes of international concern, the most serious human rights violations.
To reverse the above situation, now more than ever, the international community, or at least States, which get involved in the underlying issues of Burma in one way or another need to extensively accentuate the rule of international law and legal doctrines. Such efforts must start with seeking a sovereign or sovereigns who have law-making power in the country. Conversely, a major component of the global society – whether consciously or unconsciously, or directly or by implication – is reinforcing the Tatmadaw’s grip on power rather than facilitating a resolution to the stated underlying issue.
Against the backdrop of self-serving illusions, UN teams and Western diplomats have begun to rebuild relations with the Tatmadaw or SAC. This relationship-building transpires alongside similar relations established by neighboring countries of Burma especially China, India and Thailand, some countries in ASEAN, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. Even though some States reiterate societal values – including human rights, the right of self-determination, humanitarian assistance etc. – many States are exercising their own sovereignty and doing whatever they want, without sufficiently heeding the rule of international law and legal doctrines. The international community must implement a sovereign approach for Burma by facilitating the enactment of and compliance with laws that encompass both federal- and provincial-level governmental institutions under their respective Provisional/Interim Federal Democratic Constitutions, thereby upholding the rule of law. When the sovereign approach falls short, concern has arisen to the extent that non-lethal support for EROs, the PDFs, and other similar groups potentially provided by the US government under its NDAA law may not be worthwhile, contrary to expectations.
