For Security of People, Stability of Federal Democracy Union and Protection of Human Rights

Starting a few years ago in the modern world, the tension between two superpowers, USA and China, has arisen from the extent to which the two nationalisms—the American and Chinese nationalisms might conflict with each other. Whenever nationalism arises to an extreme extent, human rights are infringed upon. In this case, upholding the rule of law is the last resort. This situation is relevant not only nationally but globally—in the case of the latter, the international rule of law applies. Both China and the US have been involved with the underlying issues of Burma, in which ethnic nationalism attributed to the military dictatorship has noticeably arisen. In support of maintaining global peace, Burma should not be the spark to increase the existing tensions between the two superpowers. To facilitate a resolution, the entire paper focuses on the crucial role of the rule of law.
In the aftermath of the February 1, 2021 military coup, Burma has clearly become a lawless society. Most notably, the state security institutions—army, police, and other intelligence forces that have become accustomed to committing human rights violations—under the command of the military council, the self-proclaimed State Administrative Council (SAC), are no longer reliable organizations that ensure people’s security. A serious concern has thus arisen: How can these abusive institutions be replaced?

This paper briefly explores how the status of state security institutions and the judiciary extensively impact human rights situations and how the military council uses the judiciary as an oppressive tool to buttress the coup in Burma. In this regard, the cases of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and a few NLD leaders are also introduced on the aspect of a fair trial. This research therefore contrasts the situation in Burma with situations found in other countries—such as Turkey, Iraq, Ethiopia, China, USA, and so on—while focusing on the crucial role of the rule of law.
Finally, the values enshrined and the flaws inherent in the Federal Democracy Charter (FDC) produced under the initiative of the Committee Representing the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw or Union Assembly (CRPH) are unveiled and scrutinized. With this underpinning, Federal Law Academy recommends drawing up and producing a provisional/interim federal democracy constitution—one reflecting the values contained in both the FDC and the FCDCC Federal Constitution (second draft)— in conjunction with the provisional constitutions of the respective ethnic states/provinces to be applied while struggling against the military dictatorship.