UK.org.


29 April 2003

Academic Group Burma;

Dear Honourable & Learned members

Firstly, may I formally introduce myself under my role title?  I am editor
and co-ordinator of UK.org's public & media information office.  My name will
appear on all communications, whereas, if a member contributes his opinion,
he also will sign off by using his first name.  We also publish 'collective
comments' when ever a subject calls for a group discussion and all relevant
levels of knowledge on the subject are present.

Although we are known to voice our opinions at the political arena, and have
indeed raised many an eyebrow, we are by no means politicians.  Our knowledge
and opinions originate from thousands of personal experiences, which derive
from individuals who have lived and served within many aspects of life. We
are also privileged to have at hand, many senior and honoured academics of
all persuasions, who offer their learned selves to us when seeking either an
historical analysis of certain subjects, points of law and of course,
translations of political ambiguities and innuendos.

We are in fact a body of former military men & women of all ranks, ages,
skills, and experiences and also consist of numerous nationalities and
cultures.  This extremely valuable asset when pooled together becomes an
answer to many questions.  As you would no doubt consider; many individuals
can travel identical roads, but all will draw differences of that road if ask
to do so, therefore history becomes a puzzle when looking for one answer! .
The only true history, to which we can learn definite answers, is the one we
have lived and witnessed!    As military people, we have witnessed death and
trauma many times over, and still our leaders choose to observe our
grassroots findings as irrelevant.  This is what our founder contemplated
when forging UK.org.  We have since shaken many souls and used our influence
in many events over a number of areas.  We are at the very least, 'realists'.
 We call a spade, a spade.  It has been suggested to us, that being realistic
does not always solve problems.  What was really meant is our realism does
not help certain people, to fool the people, into voting for them.  Far too
many leaders are fearful of the truth in case it loses them votes. For many,
power is the ultimate climax of success, and they will do anything to reach
it.

UK.org strives to deliver the simplicities of peace and harmony, before power
hungry seekers create differences, which cause conflict.  An impossible task,
many say is impossible, but we know it is not, because most of us have at one
time or another been among our selected enemies who in certain circumstances
are themselves depicted as enemies within their own society, only to find
that without the influences of power seekers and manipulators, are content to
live and let live.



The title of 'power seeker' refers to all those who want to be dominate over
others.  It starts from the top and carries down to the thug on the street
who becomes the tool of who ever gave him the freedom and resources to cause
turmoil.

Many of our members have travelled through Burma under different guises.  We
have accumulated an interesting catalogue of information, some of which have
been commented on by us.

Life is not that difficult to focus on, its people who find complications to
suit their own demands, and the result of that manipulation, is the less
informed people tend to study the complexities of life which society imposes
on them, and they quickly become entangled, and as an end result become
dependant on those who rule.  The mixed interpretations of both, history and
the present, which occurs in all aspects of life, are the culprit.  It is
man's own existence, which perpetuates confusion!
The most serious of problems are often the easiest to solve.  As soldiers we
are taught to look into the wood and not at it, for we need to identify the
dangers or the safety, which it may hold within it, and not to be blinded by
its mass.  Life is the same.  Forget the mass illusion and look inside.
However, this can only be done at ground level and not from the pulpits of
power, for all 'they' want to see, is the mass, which they in turn, will
invent images and confusion via multi interpretations in order to control
events, and you!  These are the rules of power seekers, whether in a
'democracy' or 'tyrannical regime', its only the method which differs.

Democracies are not what they seem.  Most if not all of them have been built
around many centuries of power base construction, made up from the
'bureaucracies' of past rulers, which without, the rulers could not have
dominated over the people.  These democracies although deemed as fought for,
were actually carefully manipulated as the human race evolved by bureaucratic
institutions of the time, for it is 'it' which rules the ruler. 'Changes to
fit the times'. Trick and treachery were the rules of the game, and continue
to be so to the present day.  Countries like Burma are expected to move into
line with these democracies, without the political pre-school education
gained over centuries, so are in fact entering a game without knowing the
rules.
Dominance in the making!
The point made in your letter referring to the counter moves against Suu Kyi
who is playing a field she is ill equipped for, is valid. Courage alone may
win the odd moral battle but has no impact on the war, indeed there comes a
time when the brave, but punch drunk fighter who refuse to go down, is no
longer seen as the hero, but is regarded as a figure of ridicule.   This is
also a clear sign to be recognised how outside influences to political change
in Burma will execute their will over any power base formed in Burma once the
regime is ousted.
Suu Kyi is fighting alone on an open battlefield against overwhelming odds.
When you are lacking in resources, you do not offer yourself as a target, or
attempt to fight in the open, and most certainly do not reveal your hand.
Unless the new leadership is aware of these pitfalls Burma will never be its
own master.   Suu Kyi is indeed a courageous figure, but is fast becoming a
sacrificial lamb, but on who's behalf?  Being endowed with honours and reward
only make her more vulnerable, because people expect more from those who are
dubbed as righteous.


It has the same effect royalty and aristocrats had to the French
revolutionaries and communism, where they were quickly dispatched, because
they represented the seat of arrogance and intimidation.  The bureaucrats of
the revolutions, who produced the 'mass' for the people to 'look at' while
they conjured the illusions to confuse and excite the people, and never
revealed the real fact of their intellect being the reason for their
execution.     .

Bo Aung Din has studied the rules and is quickly learning how to play the
game, by studying his opponents in detail.   His past experiences enable him
to see into the mass, so he is not drawn into danger or corruption from false
interpretations.  His low profile and the fact he does not reveal his hand,
is a prime example of his cunning, which is being used to benefit the people
and not himself.  His ability to learn the rules and create his own agenda is
apparent to many of our retired generals and strategists.  Again as soldiers
we learn that the jungle can be a bigger enemy than man, but by respecting
its existence and becoming part of it, you not only learn its secrets you are
able to undermined its potential to harm.  This is Bo Aung Din. He never
ceases in his calculations until he uncovers a solution, allowing him to move
on to the next one. He does not race ahead of himself.  This way he can
ensure that Burma rules itself on its terms, and not influenced by outside.
He is unique, in that he has learned from his own living history, and does
not depend on the misinterpretations of the history books.  He is unique
inasmuch as he only works for Burma, and not self-gain.  We at UK.org know
exactly how he lives, and the countless hours he works, but still he refuses
all offers of comfort. His pockets are empty because he pass's any funds he
may have outside of his essentials, to feed his people.  He refuses financial
donations from our members, saying it is a Burmese fight and can only be won
with Burmese support.  We no longer pressure him, simply respect his request,
as we have come to respect him greatly, and can only admire his
determination, and pray that his health supports his determination.  We are
in a position to exploit public opinion in his favour, again he requests that
we reframe from it.  It is a Burmese problem, and Burmese people will solve
it.  It will not be the shouting from outside that wins the war, but the will
of the people inside.  If anyone can stir up the will to fight, than Bo Aung
Din is certainly the right man.
A leader is someone who knows what needs to be done and can take decisive
action and can 'choose' subordinates who benefit the people by leading
through example.  To achieve his goals he understands the importance of
gaining trust from the masses.  He only voices what he can produce.  The more
difficult problems are kept in his head until he finds a solution.  Unlike
the revolutionist, he is fully aware that success depends on all levels of
intellect, bringing a mass of opinions to the table, where dissection and
evaluation can take place.  Importantly, he has also, a firm grasp on
reality, knowing and understanding that 'unconventional besides conventional'
means are the key to success.   Bo Aung Din is like a powerful engine, but he
requires the fuel to drive him forward, up until now he has applied all of
his will power to push the vehicle forward until aided by the efforts of
other willing hands, but without fuel the burden of pushing becomes tiring
for all.  The fuel required, is the people. Slowly but surely the fuel is
beginning to pump, and momentum is being achieved.  The honour of that goes
to all those dedicated people who work with Bo Aung Din who, due to his own
strength of character which undeniably portrays the image of good leadership,
which is respected by those he represents and stands for.  He knows how to
win.  If the people give him the tools he is the one person who can deliver.

I regard UK.org, as a massive think tank, the difference being from
government level think tanks, is that we include those at grassroots level
who are making the history as opposed to those who write about it.  Again,
our founder's philosophy runs on the understanding that a general's view of
the battlefield is only as good, as the reports coming from those on the
ground. False information will lead to disaster.  We only have to compare
media reports on a particular subject do clearly identify the variations of
facts. This in its self is confusing to the reader and creates argument
between readers of different newspapers.  When future populations read
today's news as archives, which interpretations are they to believe, and how
will it affect the stability of their societies?   Bo Aung Din calculates all
this information in order to secure Burma's future from misinterpretation
through the years to come, with the possibility of being manipulated by
future despots.  He does not want an over night democracy but a life which
will allow the people to retain their freedoms for many generations to come.


Too many up and coming democracies base their freedoms on western type
societies and have suffered many hardships because of it.  The most
manipulated barrier for any new unified democracy is culture and religion,
only the na๏ve and gullible would accept different.  In today's 'democracies'
only the surface is visible.  Unless you are part of the grassroots and
living among society on the ground, a true picture is not possible, therefore
will guide the innocent and na๏ve minds that want to copy, into a bottomless
pit of despair.  This is witnessed still today, in the former eastern block
countries, which only visualised the comforts of the west but could not see
the sludge, which is carefully hidden. We in England constantly read about
crime rates as being down and poverty is in decline, Europe and America
experiences the same delusion.  A person only has to live on the streets for
a while to know this is nothing more than camouflage.  Democracy is reaching
its ceiling and is desperately in need of repair.  Democracy brings freedom,
freedom brings prosperity, which breeds envy, accompanied with individualism,
which in turn brings confrontation, which destroys democracy and returns to
anarchy and war.  Democracy is said to represent freedom, but it too, carries
an expiry date.  Again, Bo Aung Din has studied this reality in very great
detail.  He has no intention of rushing into a firestorm, more importantly;
he will not push the people into a hidden pit of further despair.  He is
truly working on a puzzle of great magnitude.  We at UK.org firmly believe
that his philosophy if put into practise will influence the world.  That is
why we support and encourage him in all that he does.

He will succeed, if the will of the people demand it of him!

We have said before, Burma has much to offer the world, more so western
societies, which are fast falling into decline.  Whether through accident or
design we can only assume.  But the reality is, Democracies follow tyrannical
regimes, police states follow democracy, police state become tyrannical, and
it all begins again, except for the 'set in concrete' bureaucrats' who change
with the times!

Your humble friends at UK.org

UK.org.

Member comment.

26 April 2003


'THOSE LOCKED IN, THOSE LOCKED OUT', AND THOSE WHO CAN CHOOSE!

I have just spent the whole day reading some of the feedback Uk.org receives
in relation to Burma.  Educated people and whom I would describe as
'thinkers' noticeably write nearly all of the letters I read.  What stands
out quite clearly in those letters, are the points of view as considered from
the particular location of the author, hence the title of this letter?

The letters outline the views of those who sympathise with armed conflict,
those who are against it, and those who cannot decide.  Allow me to place
them in order of merit according to my own personal experiences gained during
my 18 years as a soldier, and my work after.

Because of the particular role I played during those days, I was in danger of
being taken prisoner, and on one occasion I was.  I was subjected to both
physical and mental torture to the point where I withdrew into myself as a
means to hold back the pain and torment.  Without going into detail, I was
aware that higher levels were discussing my situation aimed at my release,
but still the torture went on purely as a means to hit back at my country and
not necessarily personal.  I was actually brought up to date on a daily basis
as to the progress of 'talks' relating to my release.  This was no more than
another means of mental torture, to give hope when in fact there were none.
My captors had no intention of releasing me alive, as two of my team
operatives had already been slain in front of me.  The only hope I had was
for me to be rescued by an armed assault.  That is the only hope I clung on
to, and which allowed me to grasp onto life for a little longer. It took what
we call a 'renegade' troop; this is a group of former service personnel who
work together completely outside any government agency, and who risk their
own lives to rescue those of us who are otherwise listed as 'expendable'.   I
was rescued after five months.   *This story would reflect those Burmese
people who are trapped inside the barbed wire of tyrinny.  I was 'aware' of
the 'existence' of 'renegade troop' and believed them to be my only chance of
rescue, this gave me strength, where as, talking with my captors, I knew was
a complete waste of time.*

The second point of view, which indicates at being against armed struggle,
reflects on my experience of being part of the 'renegade' troop today.
Naturally the troop studies world politics in great detail as part of its
curriculum.  When to go, and when not to go, must be a vital part of the
wider strategy of things.   We would sit and listen to the armchair
politicians, the pacifists, the industrialists, the scholars, religious
leaders, etc. etc.  *People, who have no comprehension of the misery that
those imprisoned or living under tyranny, have to endure. *
To which I might add magnanimously, is generally endured on their behalf, and
allows those people to go home at night and sleep peacefully.
Many believe that only those outside of conflict are eligible to talk peace
because it is believed their minds are not filled with hate, therefore are
not guided by it. It leads me to ask, what therefore motivates them, and how
do 'they' comprise a list of priorities and too who's advantage?  Many people
ask the same question, what does guide them?   Is it, compassion, regret,
hope, charity, ambition, or simply 'self indulgence in wallowing
self-egotism?  I say that because, *those who really care, physically place
themselves in the field of fire, in the form of human help.  These selfless
people are always calling for peaceful solutions to conflicts*, and I for
one, respect their views, but many of the same people, agree as I do, that tim
es arise when only force can bring about democracy.  The world has gone
through major wars to prove this, and now we have seen it in Iraq.
These dedicated people do not sit back in the comfort and security of a
friendly nation living from the proceeds of donations and political
assurances from supposed supporters who themselves have much to gain!

If applied force was an un-necessary means of retaliation, why do we imprison
criminals, why do we have police forces, if force, or the threat of it, was
not a logical means to sustain democracy, to attain and to keep the peace?
*Democracy along with peace always comes at a price, even when it may appear
free, because, somewhere down the line it was bought and paid for by
someone's blood!   Nothing comes for free although some say we are all born
free of chains, but, is it that simple to forget the pain endured by the
mother, simply because we as men cannot feel her pain? *

The third point comes from those who cannot decide on a solution.  Again as a
member of 'renegade troop' we are often confronted with dilemmas.  The most
common being; do we risk the lives of troop members just to save one
prisoner?  We have to decide whether or not our intervention will
intentionally adversely affect the stability, respect and influence and of
course fear, the captors may hold over those it rules?
We like to believe, that we are realists, in that, we do consider any
backlash our intervention may bring, and go to great lengths to analyse those
possibilities, and how to prevent or contain them.  We always come to a
conclusion; we are never left in a situation where we cannot decide!  It is
very rare that we abort any undertaking to rescue someone if it is within our
realms of possibility.  *Sometimes the act of rescue is designed to undermine
the captor's ability to prevent it, therefore outlining his own weaknesses,
which could generate the will among those oppressed, to use that weakness to
their own advantage.*.

Iraq is a prime example of a people who considered the regime to be
un-breakable, but once the coalition forces had dispelled all belief in that,
hundreds of thousands of people came out on the streets without fear of
reprisal, and found that the very people they once feared are now in fact, in
fear of them.   *However, it is too easy for those people to now look back
and say, "if only we realised how weak the regime really was". For without
the might of the coalition forces, guns against sticks would have been the
result, had the people risen up before hand*.
It was not only the act of war, which brought Saddam's regime crashing down.
The 'threat' of armed assault leading up to it, was a major contributing
factor.

Those at the helm of the regime knew only too well, the effect of armed
threat had among its troops, who in turn, had to decide whether their fear
from the regime was greater than the fear of reprisals from the people of
Iraq if and when the armed assault against them, takes place.  As the risk of
a military onslaught became more apparent, slowly but surely, the regimes
army began to break up and disperse out of danger.

*SUMMERY*

People's views are always influenced by where they are in comparison to an
event.

'Those locked in' = are the oppressed people who have no way of escaping from
their misery.   For these unfortunate people, talking only lengthens the
torment.
By knowing that others are negotiating your freedom does not ease that
torment but actually increases it. Those talking on your behalf can leave
their pulpit at night and return to a safe and peaceful bed, knowing they can
wake to continue tomorrow.   Those voices are a million miles away from
reality, and after a time only bring despair to the imprisoned and even
contempt for those who regard themselves as saviours in their cause.
Suffering brings animosity, which is aimed not only at your captors, but also
toward those who pacify your captors.  All sense of 'following diplomacy'
loses its meaning, and as a tortured prisoner, one simply asks, "Why cant the
politicians let someone come for me, do they not understand that talking is
extending my agony"?
The situation is made worse for those who have no hope of rescue by armed
assault because that capability does not exist!

'Those locked out' = are people who cannot return through fear of
imprisonment or death.   These people have been made enemies of the state,
because they pose a threat to its existence.  Although locked out from their
country, many of these people strive for a means to bring down the regime,
but because of the periods spent in moderately safe societies it must be
expected that some of these same people can become separated from the reality
their countrymen are experiencing in Burma.  They fail to understand, because
they are living in a safe environment, which it too was fought for, that
democracy can only come at a price.  So, by reverting to pacifism are in fact
prolonging the suffering of the very people they are seeking to liberate,
which in turn allows the regime to dig in even deeper.

'Those who can choose' = are the people who manipulate a situation for their
own gain.  They can move in and out of Burma with ease, because mostly, they
are dealing with the blessing of the regime. Or indeed are acting for it.
These lowly parasites will study the lay of the land.  They will continue to
prosper and keep out of the limelight just so long as the regime has no
immediate threat made against it, in which case they would suddenly be seen
to change allegiance.   This will be the first clear indication of any real
threat made to the regime, and it is already happening, as some Burmese
businessmen have apparently, approached UK.org and shown a willingness to
secretly support the PDP.

CONCLUSION:
Should those 'involved' but safely outside, consider the views of those
people imprisoned, and their continuous suffering, or agree to continue
talking even though accepted as a wasted cause, as witnessed in Iraq, or do
those 'concerned' give the people of Burma some feeling of security while
they talk?

The 'involved' people I regard as parasites, people who feed from others
misery in order to boost their own ego as saviours, and in other cases to
increase their bank balance.  These people are in fact a bigger threat than
the present regime in Burma, because they use the cover of humanitarian acts
to draw attention to themselves, and if allowed to move into government,
would become just another parasite.

The 'PDP' however, could be regarded as; 'locked out' and risk their lives
whenever they enter Burma.   The PDP leadership are working increasingly
harder every day to find solutions to Burma's problems without scavenging
from it.  People inside Burma are becoming increasingly more aware of this
fact, but more importantly, they are known to have an armed wing, which as a
defence force offers protection to those under its wing, something talking,
cannot offer!  It can already boast of successful rescue missions from under
the very nose of the regime.  In some cases the regime soldiers turned their
eyes away, in other missions they did not, and in other cases the regime
soldiers joined forces with the PDP forces, and are now fully fledged
members, where their knowledge of the regimes methods are useful. .  The PDP
are seen as a ray of hope in Burma, because they are 'doing something besides
just talking'.  We would term that as 'rallying around the colours* (flag*)
which stands amid the carnage of the battlefield to show the troops that
order is prevailing.

Today, no other group in Burma has the 'ear' of the world as much as the PDP.
It may be seen to move slowly, but in truth it has advanced greatly.  It does
not seek the publicity others crave for; its method of careful but calculated
re-emergence into the open is appropriate to its success. The PDP has indeed
been approached by some world media groups, but the leadership prefer a low
profile, which I personally believe, is done in respect for the NLD, even
though its achievements are nil, the PDP, I think, respects the 'people' who
elected the NLD.  This in its self must surely portray a true act of
democracy in action.   The PDP is now recognised by the world as a legitimate
opposition party, which it is, so, at this point in time it is happy to
travel on its present course.  It is like the iceberg, where only 1/3 is
showing above the surface, while the bulk of it is laying silently below the
surface.

The 'NLD' on the other hand, gladly accepts the role of the media, who are a
source of foreign public relations on its behalf, and indeed has made way for
tidy sums of money to be directed in the direction of Suu kyi and the NLD, so
at least some futures are secure no matter what the outcome, but foreign
media and PR tactics, do not reach into the depths of Burma, The odd small
town or village situated on a main road, is not exactly down town Burma,
where the majority of votes would come from in an election, and the SPDC are
only too aware of this, and is the reason why they allow these trips to
proceed.

The NLD must now consider the PDP as a credible pro-democracy ally in
opposition, the repercussions of ignoring that fact will bring down a
coup-de-grace, finalising its already, defeat by the SPDC, and will end its
days as a viable political party.

May Burma's future be bright?

Robin,
a UK.org member

UK.org

Collective Comment.

10 April 2003

TALKING BY ITSELF DOES NOT BUILD BRIDGES, FACT!



Burma is a country in 'check mate' not as many believe, in 'stale mate'.
The master player 'SPDC' is in the driving seat, its opposition is in
disarray with only kings & queens but no pawns to protect them or to carry
out the game plan!
The self appointed kings and queens do have their bishops, rooks and knights,
to act as advisors, but prefer to keep them off the board.
The pawns are scattered far and wide, so are out of contact from any command
and control.  Not all of this dilemma was caused by the clever moves of the
'SPDC' the lack of co-ordination between the kings and queens (the NLD &
NCGUB) and other elements within the pro-democracy movements, are  major
contributions.

It took more than talk and sanctions to dislodge the tyrannical regime in
Iraq.  A very clear sign for all those armchair advisors who say Burma can
only be freed by talk.
As former military people, we understand that tyrants will only give ground
to superior influence.  The talking starts after the tyrant is removed, when
rebuilding begins.
There are members of UK.org, who have been held as prisoners of war in the
past.  For those men to attempt talking their way out of torture would have
been futile.  The only way to achieve their freedom was to fight their way
out!

You do not have to be a war monger to understand the fact, that sometimes
force is the only way to protect your self, and a decision to make a first
strike, due to first hand intelligence, could save your life.    There will
always be passive and non-informed people who preach.  It is very rare indeed
to hear passive words from anyone who has been on the receiving end of a
sadistic torturer.  Any one, who has been violated by crime, has no sympathy
for the criminal, only contempt.

As former military people we appreciate peace more than others understand, we
are simply those who are willing to stand up and fight for our freedoms while
others sit back and enjoy the benefits free of charge.

Many among us have suffered great pain while the less informed sit back and
find criticism.  These people create hardship and are inadvertently playing
ally to the tyrant.    This type of scenario has been the brunt of Burma's
problems.

It was hoped that when the 'NLD' won its victory, (not due to passive
resistance we might add, as many individuals paid the price) things would
change for the good.  The realists among us however, knew exactly how things
would turn out, but when a people who has suffered terribly for years, see a
light, they want to believe it in their hearts that good time are ahead.

The 'PDP' felt this hope, remembering of course they had been part of the
armed struggle for a long time, even so, they stood behind the 'NLD' when in
fact, with their pedigree, could very well have entered the elections had
they chose to.
Like many others in the political arena, they believed, that by using the
credibility of 'Aung San' as a rallying point, and 'Suu Kyi' as his heir,
poignancy would set in, and the swing toward bringing down the regime would
be imminent.

The 'PDP' gave their support in every way, until it too, finally accepted the
fact that the regime is winning every move due to its military influence as
well as its cunning.

The 'PDP' is the only reputable party with a history of government in Burma,
and has committed itself to the reality of the situation.

Our own studies show a complete breakdown within the 'NLD', together with
internal bickering and self gain interests being a disturbing fact.  The only
reason the 'NLD' is appearing to receive outside help is down to the fact
that up until now, no other viable party existed in the minds of the world.
Up until now that is.

Due to the intense dedication and true loyalty to the people of Burma, and
free from corruption, personal interests or fame, the 'PDP' led by 'Bo Aung
Din' has, after five years of work, started to be acknowledged through out
the world.  The 'PDP' can sit with any world figure and show its credentials
with honour.

The 'PDP' has, because of its loyalty to the people of Burma, found itself
bound over by their principles, to move ahead of the 'NLD' in finding the
solution to Burma's suffering.  This decision has been reached not without
regrets, brought on by the fact of the 'NLD' refusing or ignoring advice from
prominent individuals, because they simply want dominance, which in itself is
against all that democracy stands for. This self-imposing isolation is
fateful for the Burmese people.

We suggest to The 'PDP' that it should reveal its credentials to every major
government in the world who shows an interest in Burma, although we are aware
of this action as already being under taken.

We suggest also, that every committed person inside Burma, who wants to rid
the country of the regime, to rally around the 'PDP' because our initial
investigations from around the world, show beyond doubt, that the
'Parliamentary Democracy Party' is fast becoming a imprint on people's minds.


For the people of Burma to ignore the 'PDP' now, will be at their own peril.

UK.org.

Burma section.