May 30, 2017. This past week, Burma’s Union Peace Conference reconvened for the third time in 18 months. Known as the “21rst Century Panglong” (a reference to the 1947 meeting between Burma's interim head of government, Aung San - father of today's State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi - and ethnic leaders from the Shan, Kachin and Chin), the conference brought together an estimated 740 delegates, plus many non-seated observers, from throughout the country to engage in a comprehensive dialogue seeking to end the country’s ongoing violent political conflicts and establish a new federal structure for a unified, peaceful Burma.
After extending discussions by an additional day in an attempt to find solutions to contentious issues, the conference concluded Monday with a first phase agreement. The “Pyidaungsu Accord" incorporated 37 high level principles that emerged from state and regional dialogues, including basic commitments to democracy and federalism, and fundamental principles covering economic, social sector, regional development and land and the natural environment. Key sticking points among parties remain (including commitments to “non-secession”). Not all parties to the nation's conflict were present, 7 ethnic parties had left early. In the next phase all parties will need to be engaged, and key issues and the modalities of power sharing and the country’s future federal structure will need to be addressed.
Evolving Common Spaces: Building common understanding and develop consensus through knowledge-based dialogues, the creation of shared knowledge, and the evolving of permanent safe spaces -- A presentation by Hannes Siebert at the Rotary Peace Fellowship 10 year anniversary in Thailand, 2015
Over the past 15 years we’ve witnessed the emergence of several unique Track 1.5 initiatives following long periods of civil wars, governance system failures, political instability, or during intractable conflicts. They served as “safe spaces ” for confidential dialogues or as support mechanisms and safety nets for formal and constitutional change processes.
The development of each of these common spaces was determined by the dynamics of the conflict, the depth of the broken relations between groups, the failures of existing constitutional and governing instruments, competing interests and the breakdown in communications. In this presentation he briefly look at five of these dialogue spaces in Cyprus, Lebanon, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar
Experiences from Nepal’s National Dialogue Platform
International Standards Regarding Accountability for
Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Jeffrey R. Seul
June 16, 2008
Development of Enabling Legislation for Nepal's Truth and Reconciliation Commission – Analysis and Discussion of Amnesty Related Issues