UK.org.
Member comment.
20 December 2003
BURMA'S 'FIRST' DEMOCRATIC MILESTONE:
Statements I have read, and the questions put to UK.org, during the past few months do reflect a clear image of those who are political aware but are not sure which route to follow, or do not have the personal courage to voice their convictions to the world, and then there are those who show signs of 'pop star idolism', where it doesn't matter if the singer cannot sing, because, brainwash a person with enough public relations and the naïve will believe anything just to be part of what they believe to be the 'in crowd'.
A well deserved concern was posted on the 'MAYKHA' list today, 20th. Dec. 03, suggesting that media outlets were bias to the NLD and ASSK, omitting any news concerning other political parties within the Burma arena, which are not affiliated to the 'NLD' in one form or another, in this case, the 'PDP', which, if is the case, would be the same for Britain to reflect on the 'Magna Carta' and ignore its affect on present day life in Britain, as irrelevant, or the USA to rebuff 'Independence day', as just another holiday? To ignore Burma's 'PDP', and 'U Nu's election as the countries first democratic government, is to ignore the most significant passage in Burma's modern history, which without, the 1990 elections would most probably have never happened!
I can understand the young generation inside Burma for not knowing their history, but for those living under the umbrella of freedom, with access to all types of information, I consider it a sign that you are far from ready to take on the responsibilities which democracy places on us.
On the 7th July 1962 after Prime minister "U Nu's" government was over thrown, the new regime showed just what it is capable of, by killing many students on the streets, their deaths were the first serious sacrifices made by Burma's young, and a signal to just how far 'Ne Win' would go to hold onto power without election. Burma's fight for freedom begun then, not in 1988, which was an extension of it, and ''U Nu's" founding of the 'PDP' became the milestone for the underground struggle, and a beacon for future fighters.
To ignore or rebuff what is now a historical Burmese legacy set into a concrete text, which historians will study in years to come, is utterly contemptible and reveals how some exiles, ( because true patriots never leave the battlefield ) all of whom are not even members of a political party of their supposed country, ( showing loyalty only to themselves? ) are an insult to those who died before and since, and on behalf of those who are afraid to mention its title, 'Parliamentary Democracy Party' and for those who also need reminding, 'U Nu' Was Burma's FIRST Prime minister, and founder of the 'PDP' and no amount of ignorance will remove that fact from the history books, just as those history books, which are under print now, will remember 'Bo Aung Din' as the party leader of today, who stood up against all odds and rekindled the spirits of the Burmese people, who in turn had become passive slaves.
The 'PDP' of today, with 'Bo Aung Din as its leader, one who has climbed a slow and bloody ladder, made emence personal sacrifices, without ever looking down, because although the past made the present, descending the ladder to minmise casualties or to mourn too long, only creates more sacrifices. These are invaluable lessons of life in Burma, and but a few can claim membership, as it requires a unique sense of patriotism, a will to win, which no amount of pain will force him to relinquish. The time is drawing near for the 'PDP' and astonished minds will wonder how they missed seeing the signs, (probably because they never knew where to look!) which again is a good indication as to the competence of the 'PDP's internal security, and its intelligence section.
As for media coverage, unfortunately this is democracy in reality, as freedom of speech also includes 'freedom to withhold'. It is not so much the greater world media outlets which matter, as they only familiarise themselves with news of today, and Burma is nothing more than a passing phase to them, whereas the people of Burma live it every day, so history before 1988, as with many young Burmese, is, in their eyes, irrelevant, when in fact it is of paramount importance to the way Burma moves toward hopes of democracy. Some people suggest, org, members included, that history and historical people are irrelevant to today's proceedings, I disagree, I believe it important to study the past, and the people who moulded out present, because it's the only way to conclude whether or not their ideas worked, or if we should change our pattern of thinking. For example, to forget or ignore Burma's historical election success of 1960 giving Prime minister 'U Nu' a mandate to govern, followed by his overthrow, in 1962 by general 'Ne Win; the later founding of the 'PDP' and its struggle to survive and fight, in the jungle, is to ignore the fact that it could happen again, leaving Burma wide open for yet another 40 plus years of dictatorship?
Today's 'PDP' recognised this syndrome among many 'NLD' supporters, and could read the warning signs of entrapment yet again. Because the 'NLD' leadership was arrogant in its ability to seek or heed advice, the 'PDP' took the only route open to it in order to prevent the Burmese people becoming entombed in the web of deceit spun by the SPDC. The concern today, is that the 'PDP' placed too much trust in the 'NLD', which delayed the eventual breakaway action by the 'PDP', it is now up to the people, (Not exiles) to identify the inadequacies of the 'NLD' and the cunning of the regime, before they are dragged under the cape of conspiracy by the SPDC.
The appearance of the SPDC ignoring the 'NLD' is a sham, it will in time acknowledge the 'NLD' allowing people to believe that it has changed its attitudes, therefore gaining sympathy, when actually, its all part of their strategy, to encase the 'NLD' in a cocoon of false empathy, only to become nothing more than a symbol used to hold the-people in their cloak of passivity while the new convenient prime minister, rules as before. (Again, those clever exiled strategists would have foreseen this, but perhaps they chose to keep it to themselves, or perhaps they are not as good as they present themselves? )
The people who should be openly discussing political entities within Burma's political theatre, are the people of Burma themselves, but because there are those exiles and migrants who for one reason or another, choose only metaphors instead of the literal perspective, designed to dispel any flak which may go their way, from those they refer to in their comments and statements, make any serious debate both nonsensical and non productive. Everyone, except the 'PDP' it appears, and a few dedicated individuals, are to fearful to confront the realities of the situation, and to put their name to any tough decisions, because they do not want to be remembered if it inflicts sacrifices, well, what has been happening for the past 50 years if not sacrifices? The SPDC, sensed the climate of social unrest a long time ago, and the final link to the chain of concern for them, was forged when the 'PDP' raised its head, and could be identified by the SPDC as the banner which people needed to see, in order to rise up. New tactics were needed to stall any threat and to combat any controlled leadership which would threaten their power base. These fears brought in a new 'road map' created in the hope of dispelling any internal fires the 'PDP' may kindle in the hearts of the people, surely all those self respecting experts of strategy could see this?
It is my assumption, to be the 'NLD's belief, that if left long enough, the people would rise up under their own steam, leaving the 'NLD' free of blame when thousands may perish, before the rank and file soldier lays down his gun, but it did not work to plan, because a people need a leader to encourage action, no matter what suffering they endure. To portrait a passive leader is to make the people passive and easier to control, enslaving them, becoming less of a burden to the rulers.
Only a leader who can accept, and has the personal courage of his convictions, can stare sacrifice and pain in the eye, and know that victory and freedom comes only to those who are willing to make those sacrifices, and the self respect lost from surrendering their very sole to their masters, can be revived!
It is the policy of the 'PDP'; I have been informed, which is also apparent to any keen observer, not to publicly advertise its moves.
If the 'PDP' wishes for publicity, it will seek it from within its own cultural brotherhood and not from western moguls who simply want stories which they distort out of all proportion to sell for a fat profit, the same way certain authors profit from other peoples suffering, under the pretence of informing the world.
The 'PDP' has selected its interviews with Asian-Sth. East Asian nations, because they comprehend the way of thinking which is so vital to understanding the political mentality of the Burmese politically minded, and the concept of thinking by its people. The interview between the Bangkok Post and the 'PDP' chairman of the 14th. December 2003, is a good example of this.
Although the 'PDP' respects the democratic principles and its application in western nations, it must be appreciated by them that western type democracy would not work in Burma, therefore any transition must be orchestrated solely by all the peoples of Burma, with possible leads taken from its direct neighbours. The slightest execution of western influenced democracy would be the same as expecting a child to behave as an adult, which only leads to disaster.
Western press is not so much the voice of the people, as many would have us believe, but is the voice of those who want to influence the people! If a person supports a particular rugby, cricket or football team, he/she will not publicise the opposition, other than, with contempt. It's completely irrelevant to the supporter if the opposition is superior at playing, and bad will is the result if their team lose, although it would be more mature to respect that the best team may have won? In the 'free world', it is the team who can afford the most publicity, brainwashing the punter into a hysterical belief that their team is the best, its even an easier task when there is no opposition, so when opposition does appear on the scene, dirty play comes into effect, which is exactly what is happening now between 'NLD' inadequacies and the 'PDP's questioning of them. Pop stars and film stars are blasted into public view because it's a business to make money, so sponsors will exploit every opportunity to sell their goods to people who are gullible enough to be exploited, when in truth those 'popular icons' are not an inspiration to the public, but are in many cases a bad influence with their self imposing arrogance, and their complete disregard for reality, for what they, believe to be an impregnable fortress of public admiration, but is in fact 'fools gold'! Sometimes, it is not necessarily the publicised body, which is faulty; it can often be those behind the scenes?
Had the 'PDP' themselves, not been sucked in by the hopes of a strong outside influence, due to the fact ASSK had strong links with the UK, it would not have allowed itself to stand aside, and with hindsight, it would have served its country better, had it campaigned and entered the 1990 elections, where it too could have demanded that the mandate given by the people, before being forced from power by general 'Ne Win', back in 1962, which must be honoured before any new election, and long before those who seem to think that the fight only started in 1988, were old enough to understand, or possibly even born, indeed Prime minister 'U Nu' stuck by the principles of that mandate by declaring that he was the elected leader, and continued to do so up till his death in 1995.
It's easy for the young to bypass this section of history, but many who fought and died under the 'PDP' banner, and are still doing so today, are a conjugal part of many people's lives today, and therefore, by ignoring the 'PDP' and the sacrifices it has, and is still making, is a direct insult to the Burmese people themselves. The 'PDP' is Burma; it is not some foreign alien to fear, leaving many observers a little bewildered as to why certain exiles refuse to acknowledge the party in public? It does not matter what the future outcome of events is, if it leads to democracy, then the 'PDP' will be campaigning along with other political parties, so it is not going to go away!
It has been said before, that the 'PDP' chooses not to chase the limelight; its cause is to educate and free the Burmese people, not to impress foreign onlookers who only want to satisfy their own foreign policy, and it most definitely has no plans to become entangled with having to prove its worth to certain exiles who would otherwise have no idea as to the 'PDP's tactics because unlike the 'PDP' they have no personal inside knowledge of what is happening inside Burma, other than what they themselves read, and the odd trip to the border areas is hardly a field trip of consequence? The 'PDP' however, concentrates on developing ties within Burma, the very people who are the heirs to their countries wealth. The 'PDP' will not offer the country to outsiders, who could be seen just as treacherous as those working for the SPDC, which will mean the people of Burma will still be sitting on the sideline while others dictate their lives. This may be what some exiles would like, but it can be guaranteed it is not what the people inside Burma would benefit from, and is something the 'PDP' will oppose. People should not make the foolish mistake of miscalculating the influence the 'PDP' can inflict if it is ever called upon to do so, both inside Burma, and abroad. Once Burma allows policy to be dictated by non-Burmese, it will eventually suffocate any chance of Burma ruling itself in any foreseeable future! The 'PDP' is the sleeping giant, it lays quite, building its strength while others run amok around it, not quite understanding and at times finding it frustrating by not knowing the full potential of what it is that rests under the blanket. The 'PDP' is content to move under cover of ignorance and obscurity for the present. It would also prefer to operate away from certain exiled individuals who themselves have histories of lost or varied allegiances which do not correspond with the ethics of the 'PDP', who I have been told, will not respond to the comments and statements made in their direction, unless these people are willing to join a political party, and to speak under its umbrella, which would benefit political debate and Burma.
Josh
UK.org member.
UK.org.
Member comment.
17 December 2003
PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE? Although the title of a song, it too can be extremely ambiguous when debating the meaning of unity. Individuals of the various free Burma groups outside the country are welled versed in ambiguity through their continuing paraphrasing and mixing of statements made by others from which ever side of the political scene they may originate from, leaving the less na??ve, in no doubt what so ever as to their ethics and/or direction, which could address the motives of these people as questionable? At least with the SPDC, a person knows exactly how to read them, 'deceitful to the core' nothing they say can be believed, even, seemingly open and concise actions are hiding booby traps. Those who paraphrase however, want to stay neutral because they fear losing credibility and status to all sides involved, hoping that when the time comes and a winner comes forward, they will be na??ve enough to commend these 'paraphraser's' for their seemingly offset support.
Among those outside of the battle field, are also the self confessed 'strategists' of democracy who still tend to stand on high ground, even though it appears as though no one has ever taken any apparent notice of them, after all, 13 years and much suffering later, the SPDC, is stronger now then ever, with the 'NLD' like the wounded pet seeking compassion from its master, and just like the NCGUB, most I would imagine, would prefer not to have such a miserable record of failure, unless of course I'm getting the recipient of strategic advice wrong? 'Ambiguity' such a useful word isn't it? Along with images of grandeur, those supposed patriots, who act as headmen of various "Free" Burma type groups, giving the impression they have massive followings, by introducing themselves as "?€??€?.. the founder of" instead, they should really step back from the dream world they live in, and focus on what is actually happening, and identify who the major players are, and join them, which in turn makes the small man who thinks he's big, 'bigger'!
These are some of the reasons as to why the 'PDP' finally stood out from the crowd to stand on its own, because it did not want to be associated any longer with the voices of retrospect and images of grandeur, which in Burma's case has no standing in present day planning what so ever, due to the fact that every move made today, needed to advance Burma's future of democracy, is based on a completely new book being written now, but as yet still requires much research, leaving lessons and personal ambitions from Burmese history completely void of all relevance?
There are members of the org, who have varying thoughts on the past decade of Burma's survival, or at least the survival of its people, and they are of course those with blood links to the country. The funding of some of these 'groups' using democracy as their ticket, seems to disappear into the deep pockets of its recipients, whereas some say its well spent? Either way, when democracy does reach Burma, elected government or parties in opposition who were recipients of donated funds, will be expected to answer questions, and expected to show accounts of its distribution! It is my guess, that time will prove, when democracy reigns in Burma, many of these 'recipients' will prove elusive, and establish themselves in their country of choice where they can live off their investments?
Voices call for 'think tanks' to be created, good idea, but, instead of handing out opinions set in hypothetical scenarios, for all the world to see, which in truth is seen by some as no more then portraying themselves in a picture frame for all to admire, should themselves link arms and create the think tank some have mentioned, and instead of waiting for someone from the political arena to make a humble approach to them, they, should make unpublicised representations directly to the party of their choice, after all expecting the politicians to act on advice which is displayed over the media, is hardly a sensible way forward? Democracy may bring freedom, but policy planning is not something to advertise during its building process.
Everyone knows how some interpret democracy, for example, making statements more in line with a dictator that no plans put forward in the name of Burmese democracy will be considered other than those based on the 1990 election? If this statement was meant to be understood as; "NO POLITICAL SOLUTION, UNLESS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS IS ACCEPTABLE, and then that would be a clean and acceptable way of standing for democracy. What chance has Burma got, if the NLD was handed power of government, unlikely as it may be, but the question still stands, and is a major tool held by the SPDC, because it already knows the answer. Apart from having no mandate from those people who were but children in 1990, and those who did vote have either past away, or no longer care, most of its politically competent elected members are at retirement age and would not cope with the stress of government, (said with the greatest of respect, but people must be realistic) this leaves a small but disillusion group of voters who see ASSK as their saviour. Nothing wrong with that what so ever, but she cannot do on her own what she could not do with world support, and it is a gross misunderstanding, that among all the faces seen as NLD supporters, there are a vast majority who were but babies back in 1990, or the very least too young to vote, therefore should be recognised as supporters at a political rally or 'CAMPAIGN' and not manipulated to give the impression that these people have empowered Suu Kyi through elections? It is most probable, that were the 'PDP' for example, given the freedom to roam towns and villages without fear of death from the regime, it too would raise crowds of enthusiastic and hopeful people, unfortunately the 'PDP' without all the PR, has to campaign inside Burma with great secrecy.
If the 'NLD' was by some chance, given power, it would soon find itself at the mercy of the SPDC, because without their help, the 'NLD' would embarrass itself, so, in order to prevent that, would cooperate fully with the SPDC, and in doing so, become a puppet government, exactly what the SPDC has been planning for years!
The 'PDP' assessed the potential of this rout and I would be right I'm sure, have no wish to be part of it, because the history books of the future as will the people, give no quarter to those who failed the people of Burma yet again!
The 'PDP's web page www.pdp-burma.net gives an open and realistic view to Burma's dilemma, and suggestions as to the 'PDP' approach in solving them. Burma must face reality to succeed, or sink with old fashion symbolic fantasies!
Ian.
UK.org, member.
Bangkok Post
Sunday 14 December 2003
Last updated 2:10 AM Thai local time Bangkok
High:33 Low:22 more Subscribe Now!
Bangkok Post
A Burmese solution
An interview with the Chairman of the Parliamentary Democracy Party in the liberated Burma area
RALPH BACHOE
Perspective: Thailand's Prime Minister has been concerned about the lack of political progress between the military regime and political parties in Burma, and had proposed a political initiative called Road Map to Democracy, which suggested that the military rulers, political groups and ethnic minorities engage in a dialogue to resolve the political situation towards democratic government. What is the PDP's response to the Road Map?
Bo Aung Din: We know what has been reported in the newspapers and on the radio, but we have not seen the text of the Road Map. However, we believe that there are positive elements in Thai Prime Minister's proposals.
The fact that he has made constructive proposals shows the concern of the region about the political instability and economic disruption in Burma. Political stability is a motor for economic investment and development, which brings in employment opportunities. In such an environment, multilateral trade with Burma's neighbours will increase.
It is important to remember that the instability in Burma had been negatively affecting the Thai economy. Investors have shied away or postponed investments because of the political situation in Burma. It is simplistic and a misreading of the regional economic dynamics to say that Thailand is encouraging the chaos in Burma for its own selfish economic advantage. Furthermore, it is easy to blame others for our own country's problems, which we _ the Burmese and the ethnic groups _ must take responsibility.
To summarise, we welcome the Road Map proposals as it contains positive elements, particularly multiparty politics, democratic political dispensation, elections, and dialogue among all political groups with the military rulers in search for a viable political settlement.
Perspective: Most of the other political groups have reacted very negatively to the Thai Prime Minister's Road Map to Democracy for Burma. They have dismissed it as ``Thailand's interference in Burma's domestic affairs.''
Bo Aung Din: It is regrettable that other political parties have reacted negatively in an impulsive way. On issues of political importance and on the governance of Burma, we believe that it is necessary to reflect carefully and explore the possibilities before dismissing them.
The other parties are mistaken; dialogue, reconciliation and the search for democracy through negotiation are paramount issues to be explored by those who want find a realistic solution to Burma's problem of military dictatorship.
Some of these political groups are bound in a time-warp based on the 1990s general election. They will, we quote, ``not accept any political change which is not based on the results of the 1990s elections.''
We find this not only politically offensive, it also offends the accepted idea of a finite political mandate given to a political party via a general election, which must be renewed by periodic elections.
It is now 13 years since the NLD won the general election on a programme to get rid of the military junta and bring back democracy. It has failed in both tasks. The military junta is stronger and more entrenched. The NLD's mandate has been spent after two terms _ eight years. There is certainly no mandate for the NLD now.
It is a manifestation of its dictatorship tendencies to continue to claim a mandate. That the NLD is allowed to get away with it bodes ill for Burma.
Like all other parties, including the ethnic minorities groups, the NLD must compete in a multiparty general election by submitting their individual political programmes to the electorate, and by letting the people choose. If the mandate is again given to the NLD in this manner, it will be acceptable to us. But not otherwise.
Perspective: Please explain the PDP's strategy to end military dictatorship in Burma.
Bo Aung Din: Our party has settled on a dual strategy to end military rule in our Motherland. These are one, political and two, liberation via armed struggle.
These two strategies are underpinned by our action-oriented political organisation directed at all the ethnic communities and the majority working together to end military rule by negotiation, up to the point where the military agrees to give up political power to an all-party Interim Administration.
Security matters will remain with the army but under civilian oversight. The Interim Administration will prepare an electoral roll and organise a General Election with the help of the United Nations which will also supervise it.
Perspective: Your political strategy seems very optimistic. What makes you believe that the military junta will agree to your proposals?
Bo Aung Din: While we agree with that our political strategy is optimistic, the political situation in Burma today is a mass of violence and oppressive military rule. It is important to have a vision of hope and optimism.
Furthermore, we believe that the military junta is finding the management and burden of power increasingly difficult. This is proven by the increasing violence, intimidation and repression of the population.
These events elicits the condemnation of the international community for the military's human rights violations. It also brings economic sanctions and threats of personal accountability for the violations. Furthermore, human rights violations and economic sanctions affect the Burmese economy negatively.
We know that these issues are of genuine concern among the top officers of the military junta. They are seeking a way out of their predicament. They are seeking a way to protect themselves from the consequences of their illegal seizure of power.
It is important to see that the original coup makers are now gone or retired. Those who have taken over are prisoners of military rule. Only the use or threat of force _ as well as the logic of maintaining power _ compels them to hold on to power. Even if they want to end military rule, they genuinely do not know how to do it because they fear a civilian government and what it will do after it takes over.
It is important to understand the military's predicament and to take incremental confidence-building measures, which will eventually lead to substantive negotiations, which in turn will result in a viable political settlement between all political parties and the military. This is why we are optimistic.
The PDP is determined to save the military junta from themselves by persuading them to hand over political power while an Interim Administration made up of all the political parties and the ethnic communities give them an indemnity for their human rights violations.
What we are suggesting is a pragmatic and realistic approach which considers the existing dynamics of power in Burma.
Perspective: What will the PDP do if the military junta rejects its overtures for negotiations? After all, the NLD has failed to achieve any success despite its attempts at a political settlement.
Bo Aung Din: It is unfair to say that, just because the NLD has failed, the PDP will not succeed. The policies and political programmes of the PDP are totally different from those of the NLD.
We are, first and foremost, committed to multiparty democracy politics and are willing and ready to engage in competitive general elections by submitting ourselves and our political programme before the electorate.
Second, unlike the NLD, we do not claim an everlasting election mandate even though our leader, Premier U Nu, was overthrown by a military coup. Unlike the NLD, we are not asking for power to be handed over to the PDP. We are prepared to compete in a multiparty democratic general election.
After 13 years, the NLD today, demands that its 1990 General Election mandate entitles them to take power from the military junta. It is not willing to submit to a General Election _ why? _ we may ask? What has it achieved for the people which will make it deserving of a mandate?
Also, the PDP approach to solve the problems of military rule are distinctive, innovative, and pragmatic. The PDP understands the military junta's problems, the rulers' fears of slipping from power and their struggle to achieve peace among the inside factions so that they will all survive.
Because the PDP understands and appreciates these concerns, its approach is realistic. It does not seek to humiliate the military nor seek revenge. We in the PDP believe that it is important to end our motherland's 41 years of suffering by embracing the realities of today's political situation and by adopting a solution that accepts these realities.
However, if our overtures fail because of the arrogance and obstinacy of the military junta, the PDP has an armed force for defensive purposes. This liberation force will intensify activities to wear down the demoralised rank-and-file soldiers until the junta comes to the negotiating table.
The PDP has a lot of support among the rank-and-file soldiers and has significant support among senior officers who want to divest themselves of power but do not know how to do it.
We are confident that we will prevail against the military junta. It is not a question of `if' but of `when' victory will be achieved.
Perspective: You have not mentioned how many members the PDP has.
Bo Aung Din: As of April 2003, our membership was 123,000 on the Thai border. Inside Burma, it was 86,300.
We are still collecting the number of people who joined our party since May, but I can say that the numbers are substantial.
We hope to have these up-to-date figures by the New Year 2004 when the verification audit is completed out by our Audit Division. Among these, we have an active 20,000 guerrilla wing.
Perspective: Impressive. Does the PDP have members from the ethnic communities?
Bo Aung Din: Yes, we have many. The PDP has been working with the ethnic groups for many years.
Perspective: Does the PDP agree with the current SPDC Road Map, which will draw the Constitution?
Bo Aung Din: The PDP is vigorously opposed to the SPDC Road Map and rejects its attempt to draw up a Constitution. The reason is, the SPDC is an illegal regime and has no mandate from the people.
Only a multi-party Constitutional Conference _ after a General Election _ has the legitimacy to discuss and draw-up a Constitution under an impartial Chairman.
This is why we object to the military junta setting the agenda for a constitutional conference under their chairmanship.
UK.org.
Collective comment.
12 December 2003
IN LOYAL REMEMBERANCE TO A MAN WHO DONATED MOST OF HIS LIFE SO THAT OTHERS MAY TREAD SAFELY
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
(Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
To 'Johno'
"Who always believed that giving life is that much more important than controlling it"
"He simply got on with the job, and done something, and people lived.
'We salute you'
A brave and selfless man died last month doing what he believed was "doing something". He was not from Burma, although his grandparents were, he was born and lived in Europe, other than, when he was in dangerous places around the world helping others who could not help themselves, and that was for most of the time. He was a bomb disposal expert, who has lived close to deaths door thousands of times, a door which finally opened in some far flung place where he need not have gone but for his devotion to making life safe for others. He carried no weapon, only a medical bag and the tools required for him to make safe the hidden death so others could walk without fear. He worked alone in what must be the most nerve-racking occupation known to man, a specialist world of men with strength of heart, courage and nerves of steel, and thoughts only, of others!
John Winters (A pseudo name) was a man of supreme character, with a personality to match. He had been decorated for outstanding bravery on many occasions. The work he done for many years, not without injuries we might add, was his contribution to the snubbing of the dirty fighters of the world who kill innocent people, including women and children. Every explosive device he defused was in defiance of the oppressor, and he never gave up the fight no matter what stress or strain it imposed on his mind. He had nerves of steel which is why these very special men prefer to work in the shadows, away from any limelight, often entering countries covertly and completely on their own cognizance with no indications to anyone as to their intentions. . They seek no reward other than to make it safe for innocent people to walk around freely.
We have attached a comment written by John, back in 2002, his one and only comment on Burma, apart from being a memorial to his character, we feel it is extremely relevant today. His statement at the end of it, reveals a man whose dedication was overcome by sadness that so many Burmese exiles were doing nothing to help their own people and simply using the countries plight for their own ends, where everyone wants to be a figure of importance.
UK.org.
Member Comment
UK. Org.
Collective Comment.
03 December 2003
AMBIGUITY, AN OUTLET FOR TRUTH WITHOUT COMMITTAL?
(Some phrases, and the use of the occasional mixed metaphor in the content of this comment, are not necessarily statements of fact, but are relevant to Burma's situation, and are there to open the mind to a wider spectrum of thought.)
There have been some interesting comments made as to Burma's dilemma, some authors remind us of quotes made by prominent individuals throughout the ages, others simply interpret these quotes in their own way, but, dispel the ambiguity and the intended message is clear.
At this point in time, everyone appears to be blaming everyone, for Burma's lack of political incentive aimed against the SPDC. Every mistake requires scapegoats, and as with the jury at any criminal trial, they are subjected to professional defence and prosecution lawyers, who could very well convince that jury as to which verdict they should reach. Many guilty parties are freed because of the lack of evidence and a powerful defence. Within the same boundaries, the innocent however, risk incarceration because experienced and almost hypnotic prosecution lawyers convince the jury of guilt. Both these miscarriages of justice are most frequent in the absence of visible physical evidence to the contrary, and armed only, with circumstantial evidence, a persons liberty is decided upon according to the experience and quality of presentation executed by lawyers. We have a saying in the west, 'a good lawyer, is worth their weight in gold', and a good lawyer knows what he/she is worth! The same applies to 'public relation gurus', who have the ability to transform a 'nobody into a somebody', or, 'reduce a somebody, into an embarrassing nobody'!
Burma's pro-democracy stage, as it stands today, is looking for scapegoats to stand centre stage, and it is generally the guilty that seek them out. These are the people who look for any conceivable circumstantial evidence, or public relations upgrading, so they can perform their contentious acts, which divert attention away from their own inadequacies or guilt.
Political debate thrives on ambiguity, it gives politicians an escape route, because if one view or policy turns out to be a mistake, a scapegoat can be found whose interpretation and execution of that policy document, or statement can be determined as wrong, therefore the true instigators cannot be blamed. Honesty, together with true self criticism, from an individual in politics is extremely rare, in fact, probably non-existent. It would take a deeply concerned and courageous individual to stand up and voice his/her own mistakes, and, admit to learning from them, in the hope of opening the minds of others and bring them together, in support of a common cause. We salute these people.
The BBC released video footage of ASSK's pilgrimage among the Burmese people.
(I wonder if Mick Jagger's holiday in Burma was connected with it being smuggled out?.) It shows the figure of Suu Kyi voicing Burma's problems, and the seemingly smiling but pitiful faces of the people applauding to what they all ready know only too well, brought on for a brief period where they feel hope, but further suggestions, that they must continue on the same road, must surely end the short term exhilaration. The people are actually applauding their own fate, like sheep walking to the slaughter, even though they sense only continuation of their plight from generation through to generation. From what we heard or were commentated on, no hope or solutions were offered to the people, it could be interpreted as nothing more than a refuelling process for imaginary minds of hope, in truth, preparing new bodies for slaughter, all under the title of non-violence?
Perhaps President Bush should have simply smiled and offered tea & cake to those responsibly for 9/11, perhaps, even Hitler should have been given a free hand to murder many more millions of innocent people, should we forgive and forget Burma's period between WW2 and 8/8/88, or China's Titaniman Square? It reads in many religious books in one form or another, "thou shalt not kill" on another page somewhere, it reads "a tooth for a tooth". Hypocritical, and ambiguous, or simply giving man a choice according to circumstances?
Dr. Zarni's paper, published in the Missima news, 26, Novenmber 03. "Can we fight for freedom"? He responded to his own question by quoting "Power never concedes without a fight, it never has, and never will"! Never a truer word said.
Its non-productive to repeat the content of his paper, so we will only comment in part, but we suggest to any reader, at least 3 in depth readings before making serious judgement, and only then, if the readers knowledge is comprehensive, not just of Burma's struggle, but also of world politics, where it is understood and appreciated, that only those in the free world can think with a complete and open mind due to unrestricted research at their disposal, something many can not obtain, therefore making any serious balanced conclusion by them unattainable. A doctor cannot make a conclusive diagnosis without a physical examination of the patient, and as Dr. Zarni quite bravely and rightly, mentions, that Burma's exiles have no idea as to the real problems the people inside the country are experiencing, therefore are confused as to how they may help if indeed they want too, his mention of Americas 'quagmire' in Iraq however, would be best ignored as it is said with little or no intricate knowledge of the situation, no disrespect intended, but things are slightly more complicated than any non participant could ever comprehend, including those soldiers on the ground! In Burma's case, there are those who simply use their countries problem as a means to boost their own image of self importance, but these people are well known to those who matter, and when the time comes, their true loyalties will be revealed to the voting public. Remaining with the subject of exiles, let us consider their qualifications as to the advice they offer on numerous occasions. Our research, reveals that many of the 'titled' persons, have varying reasons for leaving Burma, most of which was self preservation. A numbered few, left solely to find other means to fight for their country. We know, and have met, individuals from Burma, who, after fighting in the jungles, were forced to flee, or realised the potential of regrouping and learning new techniques to fight with, and constantly return to the jungle at their peril, to pass on this knowledge, and have spent many years as part of the struggle both in mind and body. Those who became 'Titled' did so at the expense of their host country, paid for by its taxpayers, and time would have created a wide gap in their knowledge of inside Burma, and comfortable living would deter any return to the old days of living day to day in the jungle with the risk of being killed or maimed. Those who do visit Burma have return tickets, and only travel for personal gain. Then we have the loyal, and dedicated, who regard their own lives as useless, unless they can help their fellow man. Intellectuals who ignore what the west may offer to heighten their life styles, instead they work endless hours, planning and organising ways to fight and win. Since WW2 and the thousands of educational studies made by Burma's exiles, and the wealth generated from it, can still not put together a unified collection of people who have the intellect to create a plan to beat a military dictatorship, because no one is interested! It takes a very special type of person to ignore the luxuries and safety of the free world, and to concentrate on helping the people living under terrible hardship. A medical doctor in the UK for example, has an earning power of anything up to GB£100K per year if they hold some added specialist skills. A Burmese truck driver in the right company, in the UK can earn up to GB£50K per year. Just two very simple examples. These people could easily afford to donate a substantial contribution each month and would never miss it, but they don't! We know there are many legitimate reasons for this, we are not judging simply pointing.
Many westerners are led to believe, that most of South East Asia is not yet mature enough to grasp the intricacies of democracy in its entirety, others, as I do, believe that many countries are held back from democracy because it suits the world powers, industry and commerce, the rich get rich after all, from the inability of the poor to compete. Success comes from determined minds, even the weak can grow strong with a good imagination and a strong leader heading a strong party.
Burma has the opportunity to stand on its own, and grow strong against those who want to keep it down. One area we disagree with Dr. Zarni, is that America does not lead by applying a dog collar; in fact it is willingly 'followed', because people want the freedoms and comforts afforded to the American people, your own exiles prove that! You do not have to force a starving person to eat; and would not consider it justified to condemn them for eating? It's the tyrants of the world who prevent freedoms, because with it, they would never hold onto power.
Sanctions are superficial to the observant eye, and are no more than a political gesture to lure a false sense of commitment. It can also be recognised, as a statement, informing the people of Burma, "that sanctions are the limit to outside assistance; the rest is up to you"! If this message goes unrecognised, as, has been the case from many pro-democracy groups, then disorganised chaos will continue, and cowing to the regime whims, will become a natural instinct from birth to new generations as a way of life not to be questioned!.
Every comment made toward Burma's situation fail to mention the realities of today's situation, and revolves around hypothetical, unrealistic and non-violent dialogue, whereas, the subject of armed conflict is not so much frowned upon, but is rather the, 'big boy, little boy' attitude, of 'cowing' under the heavy odds against, syndrome? Only the extremely naïve believe that passive argument is a weapon against tyranny, Aung San Suu Kyi included, although maybe not completely naïve, as she knows that's all she has. She cannot be seen to depend on the armed factions of ethnic nations, even though perhaps she wished it were possible, because it is believed, are only interested in their own agenda, and to be part of an ethnic march into Rangoon, for example, would create more antagonisms, adding to the problem and not levelling them. Therefore, she has no choice but to fight with what she has, voices, but deep in her heart, as with all in opposition to the SPDC, she wish's for the military might to dispel the despots tearing the country apart! Democracies have their military sitting in the shadows, Israel is now a powerful military nation with nuclear capabilities, and will hunt down its enemies in every corner of the globe, because never again will it stand and watch while millions of its people are slaughtered as in WW2, but of course, all intelligent people know that, so why all the preaching of non-violence against tyrants?
Many different ideas have been put forward by numerous individuals, but all are funnelled into dead ends. Some have, come close to voicing alternative routes, but none have made clear and concise suggestions toward it? Of course I am speaking of armed conflict, applied with more aggressive intent. As long term, former soldiers, sailors and airman, we at 'UK.org', have been involved in numerous conflicts around the world, sent by our political masters as a last resort, because peaceful dialogue proved futile. As professional armed forces personnel we are expected to follow orders in the belief that our masters are on the side of right. We do not go into battle, or walk the streets of terrorism knowing our backs make excellent targets to hidden snipers for our own personal gain, as in, the old fashion rape and pillage, which would be payment, for our services, but, of which is part and parcel of the 'SPDC'S' method of recruiting its' soldiers. We are however, willing to participate in the over throw of a despot regime which is a direct threat to our very way of life within a fair and democratic society. Had Hitler invaded Britain back in WW2, the people would have took to the hills and mountains, and fought a bloody and punishing war, where countless reprisals would have been made against the innocent folk of Britain. This would have punished the consciences of those fighting, but not deterred them. This is the price of freedom, and this is where the courage of the individual is found. Anyone can stand up for non-violence against a ruthless murdering dictatorship, but only fools would die for it! What is Burma's reasoning as to why it is not a satellite of a fascist Japan today, and why Europe is not under the control of Germany? If the answer is not familiar in a readers mind, then there is much to learn, and Burma's future will stay firmly under the control of the SPDC.
Some say that armed conflict is useless against the SPDC army of such magnitude? Who, among the pro-democracy activists, home based or exiled, are qualified sufficiently in military academics together with years of practical field operations, to make that statement, apart from those allied to the SPDC, and defeatists?
It has to be considered if it is any more painful, to know that many people inside Burma are suffering terribly from reprisals in retaliation to armed attacks from anti-regime units, than it is at the every day torture and rape of those very same people, and the pillage and destruction of their homes by sadistic regime troops? Of course it isn't, the only difference being, those who suffer in retaliation, can smirk at the enemy, with the knowledge that they too, have been hurt, whereas those who suffer as a matter of daily routine because they are defenceless, can only submit to suffering with out hope!
Burma needs someone who is actively part of Burma's fight in country, and is in tune with its needs, and is courageous enough to confront them head on, along with the critics who hide behind safety barriers, and who are oblivious to those needs.
Why has armed conflict never been seriously discussed between the pro-democracy groups? Is it because those who have armed capability seek their own solution along with their own agenda's, making any unified military retaliation impossible, not forgetting of course, that it is the ethnic nations who hold the most arms, therefore dictate policy on the battlefield? Perhaps it is for this reason that talks have never moved around forming a unified military front?
In that case, what if a 'Burman' faction was to take up armed conflict against the regime, a group who does not depend solely on ethnic patronage, but, holds their support? The NLD preach non-violence because they would lose what they consider western support, and its leaders are not strong enough to take on the burden of casualties, when in fact, it is only the various passive movements around the world which actually preach this naïve policy. Governments will not seriously commit suggestions to another country as to its means of protecting themselves from tyranny; this would be a foolish political error. As this comment suggests, quite the contrary could be evident if the un- said messages were identified!
The fact of the UN and other nations, not stating the NLD's perfect right to a mandate after so many years, and suggestions now aimed at multi party talks, and not tripartite, is a startling reflection as to the influence of the 'PDP' to the worlds conception of Burma politics and its realistic approach to their countries dilemma!
Knowing what you have at your disposal, and knowing how to use it to your advantage, is what makes a good leader. Not knowing what you have, but fighting a battle as though you have all, is insanity. Not responding to continuing punishment is either masochism or defeatism. There is no place for either in conflict such as Burma's
For those who live relaxed, with the freedoms of the west and sleep peacefully in their beds, Burma is no longer your home.
To those whose minds which are a mass of painful images and bad memories, denying peace of mind, conscience can only are relieved by becoming part of the 'PDP' family. Just contacting them will take some pain of doing nothing, away. The 'PDP' know, that those people who believe they can do nothing, are in fact, Burma's answer to freedom, all that required is leadership!
Consider the events in Burma since the end of WW2? Those under 50 years old would not hold the firm understanding or experience to respond, and written history is often a mass of non- factual and confusing interpretations.
1. Independence.
2. 1960, Democracy under 'U Nu'!
3. 1962, Military coup by General Ne Win and dictatorship!
4. 1990, Elections
5. Continuation of dictatorship!
6. Over all, Burma's dilemma is the creation of Burma!
7. The people of Burma are the only one's who can solve it!
The delay in Burma's progress, is not due to massive military odds against, but is due to the massive brain washing indoctrination implanted into the heads of the people, aimed at pacifying them into submission. Something the SPDC applaud, because it removes any threat against them, and prolongs its ruthless dictatorship. If this is what the people of Burma want, then they have the rulers they deserve, and nothing more can be done. If on the other hand, it is instincts, which force them to simply follow the crowd, but their conscience and hearts are looking for other more promising routes, then the 'PDP' is the only option, as all others have been proven as lost causes! The people of Burma as a mass, either want to win or lose, to win, they must support the 'PDP' and listen. To lose, means following the same path since the over throw of Prime Minister 'U Nu', in 1962. It's a choice only the people inside Burma can make, because it is them who must fight or die, as those outside have already made their beds elsewhere, however, for those who have no stomach for fighting, they can still help by supporting the 'PDP' in other ways!
It is our firm understanding, the 'PDP' is not instigating a call to arms, what it is saying, that to negotiate with your hands tied behind your back, is foolish and non-sensical, as it places the opposition in a win all position. Many lay praise on Nelson Mandela for what appeared as a passive status, but many forget that the ANC was still a force to be reckoned with. Britain's conflict with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) may now appear as conciliatory, but it is only on the basis that the IRA still retains a considerable arsenal of weapons and the will to use them if talks do not go their way. The difference between these two examples is paramount to Burma's future. The 'PDP' is for the people; therefore detest the notion of playing the terrorist, who, in his quest for power, will attack indiscriminate, soft, and innocent targets. No sane mind, would ever consider this against his/her own people, on their home soil, even though the enemy is of the same blood, but, oppressive Soldier against people soldier, and competing minds of intellect, are areas to which are unavoidable!
It is every human being's right to live free from oppression.
It is considered by many observers that the lack of advancement is due to the historical mistrust between the ethnic nations and the Burman. It is these ethnic nations which hold the vast majority of arms, with a minority of Burman allied to them. The SPDC, have freedom to roam the land it controls, applying harsh and cruel methods to hold down the people. Because the armed ethnic population only monitor their own perimeters, the SPDC army have complete autonomy in these defenceless lands, and slaughter at will. The 'PDP' is well on the way to alter that balance! It has gained the trust of many ethnic leaders, because it stands for all, and sees only the SPDC as its foe.
This is the final wake up call. UK.org.