Once again, the United Wa State Party/Army (UWSP/UWSA) which is the de facto government of the Wa Self Administered Division (SAD), hosting the ethnic summit in Panghsang, 1-6 May, has called for a separate statehood, this time claiming the support of the majority of the 12 ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) present there.

No one appears to know how many, and which of the EAOs, have actually lent support, as the summit was just a series of speeches made by the participants and no exchange of views was involved.

U Ye Htut, the minister of information, responded to the call on 15 May, while attending the Economist Myanmar Summit in Rangoon, that the question has to be settled between the Shans and the Wa, as the Wa SAD is part of the Shan State.

Everyone knows of course that this was just a political buck-passing as the 2008 constitution drawn by the military has already outlined the process quite, but not perfectly, clearly:

As said earlier, the procedure is quite clear. What isn’t clear is that who decides there is “a cause to re-delineate the territorial boundary of a Region or a State”, the Shans or Naypyitaw —or someone else.

On 30 January, I was asked pointblank during the lunch break in Mong La, by the Wa government’s “foreign minister” Zhao Guo-an, what I thought about the Wa statehood aspirations.

My answer was:

“I’m not a representative of any organization. But personally I saw nothing wrong with your wish. It is natural for a member of a family to want to leave and set up a separate home. But to support it is something else: What do I get out of it in return?”

I meant what I said.

The Wa didn’t lodge any complaint when the 1947 constitution combined the Federated Shan States and the un-federated Wa States to become Shan State of the Union of Burma. The reason was simple: The Shans then appeared to have everything a people could wish.

But now that the Shan State hasn’t anything but a name, while the Wa have everything except the name, they want to leave without even saying if the Shans need any help, they have only to ask.

Of course, if what the Wa want is just a name and nothing else just like the Shans, the Wa can have not just one but a hundred Wa states, which means nothing under the present constitution.

However, if what the Wa want is their own government, own legislature and own army, apart from recognition, the only way to do it is helping the Shans, as well as others, to have them too. The Wa won’t need to worry garnering support for its own aspirations then.

Logically, what we all should do is of course to hold discussions how we can help the Wa as well as satisfy the expectations of Burmans and other non-Burmans alike. The political dialogue that has been planned to be held before the general elections in November should be the place to do it.