Article from the Asian Tribune.

Date : 2004-01-12
The Burmese resistance road map

By Myint Thein : Senior Advisor to the Burmese Resistance


The Burmese Resistance Road-Map for the restoration of freedom and democracy in Burma has three main features.

It calls for the appointment of a new UN Envoy for Burma with significant political clout and no business ties to SLORC/SPDC. This new UN Envoy will facilitate a Cambodian type political settlement under a United Nations Security Council mandate with the threat of worldwide UN sanctions if SLORC/SPDC opposes it.

The United Nations will also investigate the May 30th Massacre and bring to justice those responsible for the murder of over one hundred Burmese democracy activists.

The Burmese Resistance quietly facilitated the re-settlement of the 2,500 Burmese student refugees held at the Maneeloy Refugee Camp in Thailand.

Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright challenged the rest of the world to take half of these refugees and America offered to take the other half. Most of the one thousand Burmese student refugees were re-settled in Fort Wayne, Indiana and about one hundred were re-settled in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Australia, New Zealand and the European countries provided refuge to the other one thousand Burmese student refugees.

No Asian country provided refuge to the Burmese student refugees. This is why I don't want to hear talk by Asian leaders about Asian values. They are only interested in looting Burma's rich natural resources. Even the UN envoy Razali is business crony of SLORC/SPDC. How can such Asian leaders be expected to help the Burmese people?

Several UN agencies has publicly stated that Burma is in a Crisis. If Burma is in a Crisis, why does the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan treat Burma as a part-time problem by assigning a part-time UN envoy, who is also doing side business with the SLORC/SPDC generals?

If the United Nations wishes to play an important role in Iraq, they should first demonstrate that they can play an important role in Burma. For a decade the UN General Assembly has issued useless annual declarations which even UN envoy Razali has chosen to ignore.

Talk is Cheap. Watch what we do in 2004. We are going to force the United Nations Security Council to facilitate political change in Burma.

- Asian Tribune -

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hear Hear, BRAVO!

UK.org.

---

Although the instigators of these crimes are dead, their prot้g้s are well established in both China and Burma, in Burma's case, do honest human beings really want to sit down and talk to them face to face, and witness their deceitful looks of peace, while they secretly plot to destroy you?


International Herald Tribune
Thursday, January 8, 2004

Mao the mass murderer?

A bleak anniversary.
LONDON While China celebrates the 110th anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth, six well-known Chinese intellectuals have called for his body to be removed from the mausoleum that dominates Tiananmen Square.
.
For Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, who live in Beijing - the other four live in American exile - this must be one of the bravest statements since the Communist Party seized power in 1949. In the most recent issue of the Hong Kong magazine Kaifang, or Open, they urge that sending Mao's body back to his home village in Hunan province "would elevate the status of Beijing into that of a civilized capital, and make it fit to stage a 'civilized Olympics' in 2008. We certainly do not want to see the farce of the Olympic flag flying over a city in which a corpse is worshipped."
.
But China's leadership has yet to come to terms with what Mao did to the country. In 1981, in a judgment overseen by Deng Xiaoping, the Communist Party admitted that Mao bore the chief responsibility for China's greatest modern catastrophe, the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976, but emphasized that his "mistakes" were those of "a great revolutionary" whose contributions were far greater than his errors.
.
This explains why a huge portrait of Mao continues to hang over the Tiananmen walls and why, in late December, an avalanche of praise for Mao filled the Chinese media. The China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, asserted that Mao's military, philosophical and literary teachings still influence China, while according to the party's People's Daily, "His outstanding achievements, glorious ideas and great charisma influence generation after generation, far beyond his own day."
.
It is impossible to imagine official homage in Germany for Hitler or in Russia for Stalin. And yet Mao was a destroyer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He exhibited his taste for killing from the early 1930's, when, historians now estimate, he had thousands of his political adversaries slaughtered. Ten years later, still before the Communist victory, more were executed at his guerrilla headquarters at Yan'an.
.
Hundreds of thousands of landlords were exterminated in the early 1950's. From 1959 to 1961 probably 30 million people died of hunger - the party admits 16 million - when Mao's economic fantasies were causing peasants to starve and he purged those who warned him of the scale of the disaster.
.
Many more perished during the Cultural Revolution, when Mao established a special unit, supervised by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, to report to him in detail the sufferings of hundreds of imprisoned leaders who had incurred the chairman's displeasure.
.
One of the chairman's secretaries, Li Rui, wrote recently, "Mao was a person who did not fear death, and he did not care how many were killed." The writers of the Kaifang article tell us what this meant for China: "Mao instilled in people's minds a philosophy of cruel struggle and revolutionary superstition. Hatred took the place of love and tolerance; the barbarism of 'It is right to rebel!' became the substitute for rationality and love of peace. It elevated and sanctified the view that relations between human beings are best characterized as those between wolves."
.
It is common in academic circles, not only in China but in the West, to consider Mao as a thinker, guerrilla leader, poet, calligrapher and literary theorist. Mao specialists tend to divide his career into two periods: before 1957, when Mao "the visionary" fought his way with tenacity and brilliance to party leadership and set about transforming China from a fragmented, backward society into a unified nation; and after 1957, in which Mao became power-crazed and dragged China into violence and economic stagnation.
.
The signatories of the Kaifang broadside, however, see Mao whole: "Under Mao, the ideological obsession with 'attacking feudalism, capitalism and revisionism' severed links with traditional Chinese culture, with modern Chinese culture and with Western civilization, deliberately placing the country beyond the mainstream of human civilization."
.
This seems reasonable. Yet few of Mao's closest comrades, or their successors today, ever admitted publicly, even after his death, that from his earliest years of authority whatever Mao proposed, encouraged or commanded was underpinned by the threat of death. This was also the secret of Stalin's power, and of Hitler's. The Kaifang writers note that "Mao Zedong's writings poisoned the soul and the language of the Chinese race; and his violent, hate-filled, loutish language remains a problem to this day."
.
In 1973 Mao suggested, apropos of Hitler, that the more people a leader kills, the more people will desire to make revolution. Mao would have approved the killing of unarmed protesters in spring 1989 not only in Tiananmen but in dozens of cities throughout China, and would have hailed the party's "hate-filled" insistence to this day that the 1989 demonstrators were criminals who deserved what they got.
.
At a recent American seminar on Mao a professor from Beijing who specializes in Mao studies asked me if I was suggesting that the millions of Chinese who admire and love Mao are revering a mass killer. I replied that such veneration was China's tragedy.
.
The writer is former East Asia editor of The Times of London.
A bleak anniversary

LONDON While China celebrates the 110th anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth, six well-known Chinese intellectuals have called for his body to be removed from the mausoleum that dominates Tiananmen Square.
.
For Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, who live in Beijing - the other four live in American exile - this must be one of the bravest statements since the Communist Party seized power in 1949. In the most recent issue of the Hong Kong magazine Kaifang, or Open, they urge that sending Mao's body back to his home village in Hunan province "would elevate the status of Beijing into that of a civilized capital, and make it fit to stage a 'civilized Olympics' in 2008. We certainly do not want to see the farce of the Olympic flag flying over a city in which a corpse is worshipped."
.
But China's leadership has yet to come to terms with what Mao did to the country. In 1981, in a judgment overseen by Deng Xiaoping, the Communist Party admitted that Mao bore the chief responsibility for China's greatest modern catastrophe, the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976, but emphasized that his "mistakes" were those of "a great revolutionary" whose contributions were far greater than his errors.
.
This explains why a huge portrait of Mao continues to hang over the Tiananmen walls and why, in late December, an avalanche of praise for Mao filled the Chinese media. The China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, asserted that Mao's military, philosophical and literary teachings still influence China, while according to the party's People's Daily, "His outstanding achievements, glorious ideas and great charisma influence generation after generation, far beyond his own day."
.
It is impossible to imagine official homage in Germany for Hitler or in Russia for Stalin. And yet Mao was a destroyer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He exhibited his taste for killing from the early 1930's, when, historians now estimate, he had thousands of his political adversaries slaughtered. Ten years later, still before the Communist victory, more were executed at his guerrilla headquarters at Yan'an.
.
Hundreds of thousands of landlords were exterminated in the early 1950's. From 1959 to 1961 probably 30 million people died of hunger - the party admits 16 million - when Mao's economic fantasies were causing peasants to starve and he purged those who warned him of the scale of the disaster.
.
Many more perished during the Cultural Revolution, when Mao established a special unit, supervised by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, to report to him in detail the sufferings of hundreds of imprisoned leaders who had incurred the chairman's displeasure.
.
One of the chairman's secretaries, Li Rui, wrote recently, "Mao was a person who did not fear death, and he did not care how many were killed." The writers of the Kaifang article tell us what this meant for China: "Mao instilled in people's minds a philosophy of cruel struggle and revolutionary superstition. Hatred took the place of love and tolerance; the barbarism of 'It is right to rebel!' became the substitute for rationality and love of peace. It elevated and sanctified the view that relations between human beings are best characterized as those between wolves."
.
It is common in academic circles, not only in China but in the West, to consider Mao as a thinker, guerrilla leader, poet, calligrapher and literary theorist. Mao specialists tend to divide his career into two periods: before 1957, when Mao "the visionary" fought his way with tenacity and brilliance to party leadership and set about transforming China from a fragmented, backward society into a unified nation; and after 1957, in which Mao became power-crazed and dragged China into violence and economic stagnation.
.
The signatories of the Kaifang broadside, however, see Mao whole: "Under Mao, the ideological obsession with 'attacking feudalism, capitalism and revisionism' severed links with traditional Chinese culture, with modern Chinese culture and with Western civilization, deliberately placing the country beyond the mainstream of human civilization."
.
This seems reasonable. Yet few of Mao's closest comrades, or their successors today, ever admitted publicly, even after his death, that from his earliest years of authority whatever Mao proposed, encouraged or commanded was underpinned by the threat of death. This was also the secret of Stalin's power, and of Hitler's. The Kaifang writers note that "Mao Zedong's writings poisoned the soul and the language of the Chinese race; and his violent, hate-filled, loutish language remains a problem to this day."
.
In 1973 Mao suggested, apropos of Hitler, that the more people a leader kills, the more people will desire to make revolution. Mao would have approved the killing of unarmed protesters in spring 1989 not only in Tiananmen but in dozens of cities throughout China, and would have hailed the party's "hate-filled" insistence to this day that the 1989 demonstrators were criminals who deserved what they got.
.
At a recent American seminar on Mao a professor from Beijing who specializes in Mao studies asked me if I was suggesting that the millions of Chinese who admire and love Mao are revering a mass killer. I replied that such veneration was China's tragedy.
.
The writer is former East Asia editor of The Times of London.
A bleak anniversary

LONDON While China celebrates the 110th anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth, six well-known Chinese intellectuals have called for his body to be removed from the mausoleum that dominates Tiananmen Square.
.
For Yu Jie and Liu Xiaobo, who live in Beijing - the other four live in American exile - this must be one of the bravest statements since the Communist Party seized power in 1949. In the most recent issue of the Hong Kong magazine Kaifang, or Open, they urge that sending Mao's body back to his home village in Hunan province "would elevate the status of Beijing into that of a civilized capital, and make it fit to stage a 'civilized Olympics' in 2008. We certainly do not want to see the farce of the Olympic flag flying over a city in which a corpse is worshipped."
.
But China's leadership has yet to come to terms with what Mao did to the country. In 1981, in a judgment overseen by Deng Xiaoping, the Communist Party admitted that Mao bore the chief responsibility for China's greatest modern catastrophe, the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976, but emphasized that his "mistakes" were those of "a great revolutionary" whose contributions were far greater than his errors.
.
This explains why a huge portrait of Mao continues to hang over the Tiananmen walls and why, in late December, an avalanche of praise for Mao filled the Chinese media. The China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, asserted that Mao's military, philosophical and literary teachings still influence China, while according to the party's People's Daily, "His outstanding achievements, glorious ideas and great charisma influence generation after generation, far beyond his own day."
.
It is impossible to imagine official homage in Germany for Hitler or in Russia for Stalin. And yet Mao was a destroyer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He exhibited his taste for killing from the early 1930's, when, historians now estimate, he had thousands of his political adversaries slaughtered. Ten years later, still before the Communist victory, more were executed at his guerrilla headquarters at Yan'an.
.
Hundreds of thousands of landlords were exterminated in the early 1950's. From 1959 to 1961 probably 30 million people died of hunger - the party admits 16 million - when Mao's economic fantasies were causing peasants to starve and he purged those who warned him of the scale of the disaster.
.
Many more perished during the Cultural Revolution, when Mao established a special unit, supervised by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, to report to him in detail the sufferings of hundreds of imprisoned leaders who had incurred the chairman's displeasure.
.
One of the chairman's secretaries, Li Rui, wrote recently, "Mao was a person who did not fear death, and he did not care how many were killed." The writers of the Kaifang article tell us what this meant for China: "Mao instilled in people's minds a philosophy of cruel struggle and revolutionary superstition. Hatred took the place of love and tolerance; the barbarism of 'It is right to rebel!' became the substitute for rationality and love of peace. It elevated and sanctified the view that relations between human beings are best characterized as those between wolves."
.
It is common in academic circles, not only in China but in the West, to consider Mao as a thinker, guerrilla leader, poet, calligrapher and literary theorist. Mao specialists tend to divide his career into two periods: before 1957, when Mao "the visionary" fought his way with tenacity and brilliance to party leadership and set about transforming China from a fragmented, backward society into a unified nation; and after 1957, in which Mao became power-crazed and dragged China into violence and economic stagnation.
.
The signatories of the Kaifang broadside, however, see Mao whole: "Under Mao, the ideological obsession with 'attacking feudalism, capitalism and revisionism' severed links with traditional Chinese culture, with modern Chinese culture and with Western civilization, deliberately placing the country beyond the mainstream of human civilization."
.
This seems reasonable. Yet few of Mao's closest comrades, or their successors today, ever admitted publicly, even after his death, that from his earliest years of authority whatever Mao proposed, encouraged or commanded was underpinned by the threat of death. This was also the secret of Stalin's power, and of Hitler's. The Kaifang writers note that "Mao Zedong's writings poisoned the soul and the language of the Chinese race; and his violent, hate-filled, loutish language remains a problem to this day."
.
In 1973 Mao suggested, apropos of Hitler, that the more people a leader kills, the more people will desire to make revolution. Mao would have approved the killing of unarmed protesters in spring 1989 not only in Tiananmen but in dozens of cities throughout China, and would have hailed the party's "hate-filled" insistence to this day that the 1989 demonstrators were criminals who deserved what they got.
.
At a recent American seminar on Mao a professor from Beijing who specializes in Mao studies asked me if I was suggesting that the millions of Chinese who admire and love Mao are revering a mass killer. I replied that such veneration was China's tragedy.
.
The writer is former East Asia editor of The Times of London.

---

UK.org.
Collective comment

07 January 200


Burma doesn't need a new constitution?  Writes Nyunt Shwe.

The article in the Japan Times was read with interest by our group editors.  The result being, that I have been asked to respond on behalf of UK.org, with contributions made by our political watchdog office, and a number of other Burma observers who have studied the countries internal situation for many years.  We sincerely hope readers consider our views as constructive, but saying that, they do represent only 'our' opinions, which could of course conflict with other Burma observers! 

Firstly, may we acknowledge and respect 'Nyunt Shwe' for his 'NLD' political affiliations.  To speak as part of, i.e. as a member of a political party, from a political stand point, and not as an individual with perhaps confused ideals due to the lack of insight to the situation, normally indicates a persons strong will to represent a section of one's society with serious vigour but, through political channels with democratic principles.  This in itself is a revealing part of that individuals character and something which others must learn and respect in order to create a free party democracy where different 'political parties' (as opposed to non-politically affiliated or members of) can sit down together to debate a common dilemma, in this case, the SPDC. 
Democracy is doomed to failure if the only available voices are a multitude of activists split into, i.e. quote; '30 internationally displaced Myanmar opposition groups." Unquote.

Unfortunately, because the 'NLD' had the full support of most, if not all pro-democracy groups back in 1990, including the 'PDP' or the 'PPP' as it was then, many other political parties were absorbed into the web of the 'NLD,' leaving them basically powerless and without a voice. The only other independent opposition was of course the ethnics, and even they fell into the web, believing that for them to advance, they too had to show loyalty to the 'NLD' and its satellites the NCGUB, and the NCUB.  This 'unification,' and I use the term lightly, did in effect reduce the striking power of the pro-democracy elements to a one pronged assault, where single minded tactics were conceived without consultation with others. 

Had the 'NLD' taken office, and allowed to govern, then perhaps, a normal process of creating a mufti party democracy could have begun, but we all know this was not to be?  

For what ever reasons people choose to serve their country, it would better suit Burma if they were members of established political parties and not something put together whilst in exile. Being a member of a 'group' among many groups, which on the surface appears too 'support' the ideals and policies of a 'political' solution, it is not what democracy is about?  (Multiples of separate opinions lead to anarchy, because everyone wants to be a leader, making civilised debate unworkable, therefore an end solution can never be found, and the chaos will continue)  It is of course perfectly understandable that people consider their contributions as part and parcel of building up a retaliatory solution to a pacific problem, but it's the absence of a unified and co-ordinated  execution which has delayed Burma's success in defeating the SPDC, in one easy statement, this has been due to the absence of good leadership?

A military division is made up of battalions, which form regiments, which form brigades, which form a division, and its, commander being a general.  Let us say the general is ASSK, and her staff officers are all 'NLD.'  Each battle plan would at first be discussed among themselves, with all relevant intelligence at their disposal.  The next move would be to invite the Brigadiers of which their may be five, depending on the size and capabilities of the army, they in turn would then call together the commanding officers of each regiment, who again in turn, would brief their battalion commanders, who would brief their company commanders, right down to the foot soldier.  By the time of battle, every individual should know his pacific role.
However, if the General staff, keep the order of battle to themselves, but still commit the troops, allowing either, the individual, or as section, or as a platoon, or as a company, or as a battalion, or as a regiment, to act on their own initiative with absolutely no communication between units, disaster is inevitable, and the enemy will delight in the dividing and annihilation of every confused soldier, precisely the situation in Burma today!

After the failure to take office back in 1990, the 'NLD' acted within the boundaries of the second example.  Had it grouped all the other pro-democracy party's together, recognising each party as its brigade, and each party's infrastructure as the regiments, it could have still retained its rank status as general staff, who in turn would make the final decisions, but it would have had a variety of both, sources and resources at its disposal, allowing the 'NLD' to co-ordinate its attack much more effectively. The 'NLD' on the other hand, chose not too, it did instead, leave a confused and undisciplined rabble of disorganised chaos, leaving the SPDC, to do what precisely it chose, divide and conquer!    

The many individuals together with the various groups to date, are best termed as 'instigators', and are not politically affiliated, only supportive to a 'cause', and do not contribute to its downfall, only 'antagonise' it, as opposed to policy makers who are members of a political union, and would prefer to establish a forum, but even then, co-ordinated unification is essential, which means the whole' division' must be invited and not just the general staff! 

The authors suggestion that the SPDC could show some form of reconciliation in order to create some element of faith between them and the people is not how history reveals depot regimes.  It will never recognise the 1990 elections because it does not have too!  Without serious opposition, and in the real world, it is almost non-existent, the regime can keep on its present path until either one of two things happen; Firstly, an armed rebellion combined with civil uprising, or, there is a rebellion from within the top echelons of the SPDC. The regime in Burma has had decades to set itself in concrete, and nothing less than an invasion from a major power will crack it.  I am afraid that anyone who thinks different is not on the same planet as the rest of us.  *The only way to remove the regime from power is to put the fear of god into every member at the top, (perhaps their belief in mystic powers can be used against them?) and the ordinary soldier at the very bottom, * those in the middle are probably waiting for it too happen. Those at the top need each other to survive; those at the bottom need the uniform to feed themselves. Keep these sections happy, and they will watch the middle section between them.  The middle section of a despot regime is the office furniture; it oils the machine and keeps up with the paper work, these luckless people probably work under great stress constantly fearing that they may make a mistake and then suffer the consequences.

It does not matter what 'connections' an individual or group may have inside foreign authorities, UK.org have what we regard as major sources all over the world, but we could never influence their thinking on policy matters, because nothing will change a countries foreign policy if it is geared for a pacific route, as foreign policy is something geared to last for many decades, in some cases centuries, and a major influential power will risk war in order to keep that policy operating, and that does not necessarily mean overt warfare, past events have shown that to be feasible.  Also, there is not a politician or government official who would grant a favour unless it furthered his/her career, or strengthened their government's foreign influence? If it jeopardised either, forget it.

A government may appear to condemn, consult, create a passive policy to portray humanity, but that is all it is, show!  Today's Sth. Africa was not brought about by western sanctions, or victory brought about by ANC activities, it was all down to a change in the foreign policy of major governments, mainly the west and the former USSR, after all it was their foreign policies which torched Africa in the first place, as it was in other parts of the world, and they applied the fuel to keep it burning for as long as it was required, besides strategic locations, one has to consider that most of the worlds rarest but sought after minerals come from Africa.  After the collapse of the USSR, the west's main contender in the world, the west had no further need for Sth. Africa as a staging post. The rest is history, and they are not doing very well are they, Sth. Africa that is? 
Burma is best serving the west and indeed China as it is now, because it is far easier to deal with a dictator who reaps no repercussions from the people.  So in order to effectively change Burma's course, those *acts* mentioned earlier must be implemented, or to persuade those countries to change their foreign policy in Sth. East Asia, but of course that will not happen.  You then have Burma's neighbours, who, since Burma's decline, have profited from what Burma once ruled as the rice bowl of the world, and dare I say it, its due to at least one good thing British rule brought to Burma if nothing else, and that is, the then, social, domestic and economical status was superior to its then neighbours. People, who accuse us of colonialism, should really study their countries history before making hasty judgements. The British didn't create today's dilemma, it simply delayed it by being present, it's the people of Burma who reaped rage upon themselves, and it is only the people of Burma who can rediscover themselves, as no help will come from outside, and sanctions will only affect the people who will be allowed to grow weaker and die, while the regime on the other hand, will benefit by its diminishing people threat.  Sanctions will in effect assist the regime in lowering the risk of an uprising, because starving people are not able to carry guns let alone confront them.

In regard to the 'NCGUB' its best said that as a showcase example for democracy campaigning, it failed miserably, because it only represented its-self, a body without cause other than to sustain its own existence!  End of story. 

The KNU, what can we say about them, that is not already been said and then twisted to suit.  People criticise the 'KNU' as they do other ethnics, because they believe in their own freedom but unite with outsiders in order to achieve their goal?  We don't believe the 'KNU' see them selves as arbitrators, because they are part of the same struggle, but because of their military capabilities they were regarded as guardian angels by those non-Karen who used their territory as a form of liberated area, indeed the then 'PPP' today's 'PDP,' operated in this way, and perhaps still do today?  Had the 'KNU' submitted some years ago, we believe Burma would be in an even tighter grip under the regime today?    

It would take more than a simple chat between the SPDC and ASSK to receive favour from the people.  It must be considered, even if, as in your SPDC goodwill', appeared successful on the surface, there will be sections of Burma's community who will only accept total disbandment of the SPDC, resulting possibly, in further unrest, allowing the regime to once again use the excuse of rebellion to take control yet again, but after of course, Burma having been accepted into the world community and the regime treasury is once more full.  A regime holding any form of powerbase will always have the upper hand, and it will not be if, but when!

Burma has been under an iron grip since 1962, a little longer than 15 years, but the point was taken in its context. 

Burma has only two choices, capitulate or fight, as was the ultimatum for all the democracies on this planet to day, and other than some ethnic groups, the 'PDP' is the only Burman fuelled political party with the gumption to accept these means, or die in the attempt, sooner than live under tyranny for the rest of their lives.  But that's another chapter.


UK.org.

      

---

UK.org.
Collective comment:

1st. January 2004

HUNGER IS BLIND TO POISON!

"BENEFICIUS ACCIPERE LIBERTATEM EST VENDERE"  ( Publilius Syus )
There are those who consider Latin to be the perfect _expression, we on the other hand find it the voice of elitism, after all, modern spoken languages are more than adequate to exploit the meaning of life surely, and draws a wider audience, after all, what is democracy if not all?
However, that said, we thought it may add some amusement to our comment if it included a few latin phrases and quotes, but of course the meanings are very serious!  

Present day happenings, or otherwise not, taking place in Burma's political arena are so vivid to the keen observer, that self destruction is evident, but is totally ignored my many, and apparently permissible by foreign nations because it suits their foreign policy to date, which is surprisingly ignored by many exiles, who still persist that outside help is the only way forward, and that some miracle will oust the regime. The only outside help capable of helping Burma, is money!  There has been plenty of it thrown at the 'NLD,' NCGUB, & Co. but is squandered on wasted causes and lavish lifestyles, by those who are not entombed behind an iron curtain or bars.  "Libertos inaestimabillis resest" ( Corpus Luris Civilis ) translated;  "Liberty is a thing beyond all price"  Something only the few are willing to pay, instead, "Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet" ( Publilius Syrus ) translates; "A timid dog barks more violently than it bites," which might be an appropriate motto for the 'NLD,' and the NCGUB & Co?

The 'PDP's latest statement, reveals its concern, over the "road map' put forward by the SPDC, and is seeking support in its boycott of any such alliance some may consider with the SPDC.  Everyone is aware of those who have signed agreements with the regime, in the hope of moving forward to democracy, but this act of; all beit with good intention or self interest, does in fact come under the Latin prefix of this comment, "Beneficium accipere librtatem est vendere" which translated means: 'To accept favour is to sell freedom." 

Of course dialogue is essential, of course grievances must be curbed, of course agreements must be reached, but if what ever the pro-democracy groups demand, is rebuked out of hand by the SPDC, what is the point of sitting down? "Gladiator in arena consilium capit" translates; "The gladiator who formulates his plan in the arena," ( Seneca ) i.e.  is talready dead! 

The idea behind unification was for all the pro-democracy groups to unite against the regime, and not to fall in line with their demands? This is the only area where the 'NLD' stuck to its principles by rejecting the last convention as unworkable, and walked out, its mistake was to attempt the fight alone, totally ignoring all advice offered by other democracy groups, leaving it powerless.  When pit against a foe as strong as the SPDC, hiding behind one brick is futile, the 'NLD' tried, but egotism and arrogance is no weapon against such an established power base. By not following through with a carefully rehearsed political manoeuvre, by sucking in any and all available advise from their 'own country/men'/women, the 'NLD' left itself wide open to attack, and is now an outcast in its own backyard, it just hasn't realised it yet, and because many exiles are not on the ground, they too are blinded by idolism, and vastly exaggerated PR  hype, leaving them unable to assess the real situation!  The outcome of that, is some of the ethnic nations have moved closer to the regime, because they do not have the military or economical capability to oppose them, but in doing so have opened themselves to manipulation. This is the path being undertaken by those who would otherwise sit at the table, with the SPDC at its head.  It is for all non-regime parties, to get their act together first, (a multi pronged attack is more effective than a single weak attempt) and then it is for them to dictate procedure.  The 'NLD' has failed because it chose to act alone against a formidable opponent, and instead of political manoeuvring, it chose dumb insolence, which any dictatorship will take into its stride.

The 'NLD'  was approached and offered advice on many occasions, both before and after the 1990 elections, but replied with undignified arrogance. 

Any dedicated patriot would have eventually stood up and voiced their frustration, but it took the 'PDP' under 'Bo Aung Din,' to bravely stand and to face the pit of despair with true grit, of which many unfortunately, are still blind to, but some are now voicing their potent views, thanks to the 'PDP's lead!

Our studies into Burma's history, together with the countless conversations UK.org, shared  with both ethnic and Burmans over the years, tells us that much of the criticisms aimed at the 'PDP' or its founder, 'U Nu', and his short term in office, is completely misinterpreted, more so by the younger generation, which, if individuals looked hard enough, will relate this misinformation with opposition envy, and a clash of personalities.  "Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat" translates (A wise man states as true, nothing he does not prove)

Perhaps there was a slight error in judgement by 'U Nu' when it came to assessing 'Ne Win's ambitions, but considering they were both holding the same dreams of a free Burma, and indeed "Ne Win' had already had his hands on the steering wheel, only to pass it back after a successful election placing 'U Nu' in office as prime minister.  Unfortunately 'Ne Win' now had different ideas in relation to Burma's future, and soon realised that if allowed to continue, 'U Nu's policies, which the people of Burma were happy with, along with economical growth, would make the people strong, therefore making it difficult, if not impossible for him to fulfil his own ambitions, so after he organised acts of coercion against the government, to create what might be seen as instability and the breakdown of law and order, took control with the excuse that stronger measures were necessary to hold down rebellion! 

Every single person we have spoken to since the 1970's, have told us two things; Firstly life had developed some form of order and control under the British, but fell apart when war divided loyalties. Those who criticise that period, surely reveal their deceitful characters, because many decades later Britain, or English speaking nations are still everybody's choice too escape to. Secondly, dreams and aspirations looked promising under 'U Nu.'  Those many people we have spoken with, have no ulterior motive by telling us this, other than, as elderly people then and now, they lived peaceful and productive lives as children and then as young adults, followed by the turbulent years of the second world war, followed by a short period under 'U Nu', which they believed at the time was a new beginning for Burma, where all people would be free to determine the countries destiny.  All these elders wish for, is to die in a country where freedom reigns, now is that too much to be asked by those who have lived lives of misery for so long, only to see it submerging even deeper into the clutches of the SPDC, because their fellow countrimen/women in exile, who are in a position to help, won't, so that now, their children's children, will suffer the same fate? 

BECOME PART OF A POLITICAL FORCE WITH A VOICE, AND AN IRON FIST.
Use the open door, which the 'PDP' displays, enter it, and share your points of view.  Like all modern democratic political parties, the 'PDP' learns from its own history, and if policies need to change to suit the times, so be it, but if the people do not step forward to guide those policies, how can any political party take a course of action to further the cause?  Hence the saying; 'If people cannot be bothered to stand up for their rights, they get the government they deserve"!  The 'NLD' has never shown this respectful 'compliment' to the people of Burma, it shuts its ears even to its own members, and forgets those who voted for it, but the 'PDP' on the other hand respects everyone's right to a hearing!  "Nemo auten regere potest nisiqui et regi!"  ( Seneca ) translates;( Moreover, there is no one who can rule unless he can be ruled )

If people want their voices heard, they must become involved by joining a political party and not act independently.  There are some who write page after page of suggestions, but choose to stay on the sidelines themselves instead of showing an example by revealing their membership of a particular political party, and then to seek nomination as a major speaker within that parties infrastructure, Whether activists or individuals, unless politically motivated, therefore are not disciplined in the art of political manoeuvring and diplomacy, will be ruled by emotion and possibly hatred and/or egotism leaving them wide open to be used as tools for the more manipulative, selfish, and ambitious minds, other than those 'agent provocateur's', of course, who are already working on behalf of the SPDC.
This leads to yet another but alas our last contribution in Latin.  "Peritissimos semper praevidere possumus, rudi auten pericul osi sunt," translates (Professionals are predictable it's the amateurs who are dangerous.) A soldier's logic!

UK.org.