Uk. Org
23 July 2003
FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Although, expected, it is with disappointment that we
naturally respect your request.
Uk.org has been aware of your group from its birth, and
as we do with all groups, we monitor the activities using
our assortment of information bases. We fully respect
and appreciate your motives; it is your train of thought,
which comes under scrutiny.
We in Britain, as you are aware, live in a society, which
you, are reporting as an aim of the 'NLD' yet, as do the
'NCGUB', it rejects confrontation, which is part and parcel
of a democracy. You are in fact using our countries
freedom, and its hospitality to allow you to reside here,
as a tool against the principles of democracy, which we
in Britain take a very dim view too. By all means
publish your thoughts within the boundaries of Burma,
but do not expect organisations like ours to stand idle
by permitting you to spread propaganda and juvenile immaturity,
with infantile threats within our walls, which many fought
and died for. You should be declaring
open and free opposition, which brings about debate; you
have no democracy, because the people are given no choice,
AND ARE MADE TO BE FEARFULL BECAUSE OF YOUR TYPE OF INDOCRNATION.
At this point in time, All 'NLD' political affiliations,
although seemingly identifying themselves as representatives
of the different elements of society within Burma, as
you and your group are doing.
(Why do you not simply title you group as 'NLD'?)
This subterfuge sends out untrue images to the world,
are in fact minute segments, which give the 'NLD' overpowering
votes, making it appear to have more national support
than it actually does. The 'NCGUB' operates in a
similar fashion, and so too, gives false images to the
world. This type of action in a democracy would be termed
as 'vote rigging' precisely what the 'SPDC' attempted
in 1990, and failed. This should be seriously acknowledged
by the 'NLD', after all, it was them who criticised the
'SPDC' for attempting such trickery!
We do however find your response in line with our assessments,
which could be read by others, as 'revealed, and it hurts'
and is a typical response from a person/s who have some
thing to hide, or perhaps is politically immature, or
is governed by infatuation where they should be ruled
by practicality and logic.
Although naturally, we honour your request, it would have
gained more respect had an invitation to explain our views
in more detail, 'to prove our convictions' accompanied
it, as would any political group who boasts it stands
for free speech and democracy, something you are not exactly
portraying, and your response, which should be questioning
our views instead of condemning them, WILL be distributed
throughout our many networks around the world, including
government bodies, the UN, and ASEAN, more importantly,
among the Burmese people, allowing them to decide on your
worthiness to represent them. It is exactly because
of your type of mental direction, which is delaying progress
in Burma, and the reason why you are stagnating, at the
peril of those unfortunate people trapped under tyranny.
We represent over one million members worldwide, who have
physically fought for our freedoms, and have sworn to
defend the rights of everyone who suffers the agony of
persecution. Burma is not our only direction, but
one of many. We would only ever, undertake armed offensive
if our own country is targeted, so therefore could never
condemn or criticise those who should have the right to
include that option as part of their policy, in their
own country. Those who condemn armed struggle, fear
it, and use passive argument as a defence for that fear,
or use it as a process of prolonging the agony for other
more devious reasons.
Uk org, receive a great many requests every day, to explain
in more detail as to our opinions, found on information
from our operatives who bring back or relay, from Burma,
along with statements and comments, etc. etc. which are
analysed and crossed referenced by experts, as indeed,
are our own comments, by other agencies. More and
more requests are arriving daily, which proves to us,
that more people are joining the 'right' to ask questions,
to those who supposedly represent them, and it clearly
shows how logic is taking over from emotional captivation.
Because we have received so many requests on the type
of questions to put to the various 'political' groups
who boast democracy, we will now, instigated by your response,
publish such a list, this may very well bombard your mail
box with questions, I only hope that you have all the
right answers, because they will, we have no doubt, be
sent to us for cross referencing, and in due course, to
be published.
Regards UK. Org.
Subj: Re: The changing world
Date: 18/07/03 20:11:54 GMT Daylight Time
From: http://by9fd.bay9.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=1&msg=MSG1058786917.44&start=872890&len=37232&src=&type=x&to=academicgroup_burma%40hotmail%2ecom&cc=&bcc=&subject=&body=&curmbox=F000000001&a=f1b066503271a6a275e2e49175c55ed3
To: http://by9fd.bay9.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=1&msg=MSG1058786917.44&start=872890&len=37232&src=&type=x&to=Ukorg%40AOL%2eCOM&cc=&bcc=&subject=&body=&curmbox=F000000001&a=f1b066503271a6a275e2e49175c55ed3
CC: http://by9fd.bay9.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=1&msg=MSG1058786917.44&start=872890&len=37232&src=&type=x&to=emlmpdp%40aol%2ecom&cc=&bcc=&subject=&body=&curmbox=F000000001&a=f1b066503271a6a275e2e49175c55ed3
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Sir,
With such a smart
brain and high calibered political thought,
Sandra's article is trully a bombshell. We strongly
recommend to everyone to
read , discuss, analyze ( whether agree or not)the
options in that article
for effective action to liberate Burma from military
dictatorship SYSTEM!
Thank you and a bow to you Sandra!
We have no doubt that PDP mehtod of approch is the most
feaseable way to
solve the problems of Burma.
Academic group Burma
>From: Steven P Thomas <Ukorg@AOL.COM>
>Reply-To: Ukorg@AOL.COM
>To: MAYKHA-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU
>Subject: The changing world
>Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:24:01 EDT
>
>Uk.org
>Member comment.
>
>11 July 2003
>
>The Changing World.
>
>Although I am an org member, new at that, I do not
always agree with
>comments
>made under its heading. UK.org is an open
book, and allows freedom of
>speech, providing it does not provoke aggression,
or treason, but any
>controversial
>subject will upset someone, so how can these subjects
be debated, if some
>people choose to brand them as, radical, racial,
religious bias,
>treasonable, etc.
>etc because they could create aggression?
It has been said that the 'org'
>can be hard hitting, and will say what many media
outlets will not, because
>all
>of its members know all about the real world with
its contradictions and
>hypocrisies, especially in 'our' media.
>I am all for democracy and freedom of speech, and
of course a free media.
>But are we not all just a bunch of hypocrites, who
tie ourselves in knots
>with
>misguided emotions, which in turn pushes us into
a world of what we want to
>see, as opposed to what the media want us to see,
and then, against all the
>facts
>of real life?
>In a tyrannical society the media is there to propagate
on its behalf. In a
>'free' society the media is there to make money,
and many of their stories
>are
>only to often, a travesty of the truth! So whom
do we believe? What right
>do
>we have to criticise Burma's media outlets, when
our own media has much to
>answer to? It's a typical example of, because
we elected our government we
>expect our news media to be honest and without bias.
For one, we do not
>elect our
>media magnates, other than the right not to buy
newspapers or listen to the
>news, and two, the fact that millions of dollars
are paid out each year in
>libel and other misdemeanours against news outlets,
show that the free
>press is
>not all its made out to be! And if a group
or individual wish to make a
>statement against a particular news outlet, or a
statement of truth, which
>will lower
>the chance of a 'good story' or embarrass them,
it is impossible to get it
>printed. Is this what the free press people
are talking about when they
>criticise Burma's press? Please do not
misinterpret my words, I abhor
>dictators and
>their methods of controlling the masses, but it
must be remembered that
>mankind is still in its infancy, and we have a long
way to go. We are still
>slaughtering each other all over the globe, and
for what? Power, only
>power, not for
>the good of mankind, only for the good of those
who want money and power.
>Burma is experiencing what every country in the
world has at one time or
>another,
>or indeed still are today, which is an ideal originating
from one mind, and
>which others join, to profit from. One mind will
perhaps invent a consumer
>item, and then someone else will spend a fortune
trying to sell it to the
>public.
>The regime in Burma has its infrastructure built
over many years, around
>fear,
>bribery and corruption. What the pro-democracy movements
have to do is
>equal
>their selling techniques to that of the regime,
and they can only do that
>with
>money, and of course the right marketing skills.
I formed a small company
>since leaving the Royal navy, but although I believe
in my product, I do
>not
>have the clout to take on the bigger producers.
Even if I raised the
>capitol, I
>will be taking on an industry, which has had many
years building its name
>and
>reputation, where people buy, not because the product
is better, but simply
>because of a known brand name. In Burma's case it
is not so much the better
>or
>most popular product, which sells, it's the lack
of any substitute.
>A person can shout volumes, advertising an alternative
product, but if the
>product is still only on the drawing board, even
though popular demand
>calls for
>it, without the bank manager's help, that is where
it will stay. Burma's
>activists are forever applauding support from other
countries, or
>criticising the
>lack of it, but in truth a person does not have
to be a rocket scientist,
>to
>analysis who is bankrolling who in Burma?
If the west for example, really
>wanted to help the NLD, it would pump money in,
have no doubt about that.
>Just
>observe the many parts of the world where armies
have been created with
>money
>from influential powers. Africa has been at war
with its self for decades,
>all
>financed with American, British, French, Russian,
and Chinese money, not to
>mention other parts of the world. This should
tell us very clearly, that
>no
>where in the near future, will the west ever finance
an opposition group in
>Burma, it will only offer tokens of sympathy.
>I believe the only way the people of Burma will
ever come to terms with its
>present situation, is to infiltrate the regimes
infrastructure, learn its
>strengths and weakness', attain key posts, where
policy can be influenced,
>this is
>how the USSR was brought down. If it has been
instigated in Burma, the
>only
>solution is, to allow it to take its course, if
it has not been promoted,
>then
>now is a good time to start. This is a long
slow process, which take
>decades
>to achieve results. The second is to accept
the clear signs that the west
>has
>no interest in Burma, and instead of suffering deeper
into the pit of
>despair, work with the regime until such time integration
of ideas can at
>least make
>a bad situation a little more bearable, as did the
Russian people, until
>such
>times the people have the power and the will to
change. But even then
>problems
>would arise, freedom does not come easily, as the
people of Burma are only
>too aware.
>
>After studying all the different opinions on Burma,
from every outlet,
>makes
>me believe that all those who cry for freedom, would
have no idea how to
>expedite its offerings, hence it would be as it
was in the former USSR,
>after the
>collapse of communism, we see in the Balkans, and
now in Iraq, everyone
>will
>become the wild dog, grabbing all they can without
concern for their
>fellowman,
>creating a new and more dangerous environment than
before, because those
>who
>have lived under the gun for so long, will, on their
day of liberation,
>expect
>complete freedom to do what ever they want, and
this means anarchy, because
>even the most basic of laws will be seen as a return
to dictatorship.
>Burma
>should learn from these other examples where dictatorships
have been
>replaced by
>anarchy. If the NLD, for example were given
office, who would run the
>country, all those loud voices who scream revenge,
and what if they wanted
>to seek
>retribution, who is going to stop them, Suu Kyi?
>
>As well as continually calling for the SPDC to honour
the 1990 elections,
>the
>voices should provide the regime with suggestions
as to how it can become a
>major force for good, because without its help,
any change of government
>would,
>have no doubt, be extremely bloody! The breakdown
of law and order alone,
>especially among the troops who may see themselves
as targets of reprisal,
>will
>take many years to quell.
>
>An interesting but eye opening article by Kanbawza
Win, Mizzima news 11th.
>July 03
> (Will Burma be the pivot of the new cold
war?) As mentioned by the
>author,
>many may not like the insinuations of the article,
but unless people face
>realities, Burma will indeed become a tool for other
nations. It is a
>fight
>between the consciences of the Burmese regime, and
those who see their
>country as a
>pawn to be used by others.
>
>The article suggests a Sino, Russian and Indian
pact; it is reminiscent of
>the 60's, which many believe brought down U Nu's
government? The then
>situation
>is different to now, and could, if handled with
care, be to the advantage
>of
>those who want a democracy in Burma! Back
in the 60's, Burma had no real
>stability or the infrastructure to create it. It
was a political orphan
>without
>experienced parental guidance. Today, after
decades of military rule, the
>country is devastated. But who can tell what
it may have been like under
>an
>elected government? Would all the ethnics
for example be as one with the
>Burman's,
>who would the government have aligned itself to,
and to what consequences
>for
>South East Asia? What would have been the out come
if some ethnics aligned
>themselves to an opposing nation of the government,
would civil war still
>be
>looming, but with greater ferocity? There
are so many questions. The same
>questions would arise if a new government took office
today, without first
>debating
>it with the present leadership! The advantage of
today, is the living
>proof,
>that the regimes way of life does not benefit the
people or the country.
>That
>factual evidence was not available back in 1962!
The same reason it took
>decades for communist Russia to realise their ideals
did not work, and the
>same is
>inevitable for China. How do we know
that leaders in the SPDC are not
>looking
>for a way out? Just because they disagree
with the NLD does not indicate
>their total rejection of a democracy? It could
be that they are acting as
>guardians, more so since Ne Win's death, until a
viable option comes along,
>but they
>do not recognise the NLD as an option? Perhaps
they are experiencing a
>dilemma now, between those who are loyal to Ne Win,
or at least his ideals,
>and
>those who seek change? The generals are intelligent
men, they are witness
>to the
>changing world, the saw how Russian communism collapsed,
and they can see
>how
>China is slowly changing its indoctrinations.
Most of all let us not
>insult
>their intelligence, by thinking that they are oblivious
to they're
>surroundings. All these theories have to be
assessed on merit.
>
> Even the most heinous criminals are given
the right to a defence, and
>democracies boast that our intentions are to rehabilitated
them, but all I
>read
>about is revenge against the SPDC .Not every one
has the unique skill and
>sincerity to coax people to change their ways, but
it does succeed in many
>cases, its
>just that the 'free' press choose not to advertise
the fact, because it is
>only bad news which make news! It's the dying
that makes news; it is only
>after
>death that it's forgotten!
>General Ne Win is now dead, let his legacy die with
him, and give the SPDC
>the chance to show it is willing to change. This
will not be an easy task,
>but
>one that has to be taken on. They may want to attempt
change but under
>they're
>conditions initially. Surely the opposition
must consider this? Even a
>bad
>start can often result in winning the race.
>With every voice shouting for revenge will only
extend the anger, and
>prolong
>the status quo. It is contradictory and foolish,
to dictate to the
>dictator,
>who holds the reigns.
>
>Because we in Britain elect our government, does
not mean that everything
>they do is right, but because we are a democracy
everything our government
>do is
>deemed as righteous? Nothing gives us the right
to declare others as wrong;
>no
>more than one religeon can condemn another, it depends
by what rule of law
>you are following. In certain countries, a
thief can lose his hand as
>punishment, or death by stoning, which would be
regarded as barbaric and
>inhumane in
>the west. Indeed Thailand's means of execution
by machine gun, is regarded
>as
>barbaric, but if that is their rule of law, who
are we to criticise it?
>Many westerners travel to far off countries and
expect humane treatment if
>they cross the law of the land, only to find out
that when in Rome, we must
>do
>as the Romans do.
>
>Perhaps the only way to oust the regime is by force,
but even if that was
>possible, who will control the tens of thousands
of undisciplined militia?
>Even
>if the majority of the armed forces welcomed change,
thousands of armed
>militia who have become accustomed to taking what
they want, who in fact
>would
>become nobodies again, would explode Burma into
many pieces.
>
>You cannot tame the dog, which has lived its life
in the wild, at the same
>time it could be wrong to shoot it out right, just
because its survival
>instincts allowed it to take a chicken. The
young dogs learn from the
>parents, where
>strength is dominant, even to the point where brother
will kill brother in
>order to survive. Burma's regime is
the wild dog, and for 50 years it has
>roamed the land and left the bones of its dead prey
scattering the
>landscape, at
>the same time its protégé's have learned by example,
so they firmly believe
>their actions to be perfectly normal, and if an
outsider tries to pacify
>them
>inside their own domain, they will bite!
>Do you shoot the leaders out of hand, even though
they believe they are
>right
>and only doing what their instincts tell them?
They are too wild to tame,
>so
>the only other option to protect people from them,
is containment, but to
>do
>this you must first capture them.
>
>Some comments I read on Burma, are feasible, such
as the game being played
>by
>the super powers, and as the author of the letter,
"Burma becoming a pawn
>in
>what could be the new cold war"? If these
powers could prevent a continent
>the size of Africa from becoming united because
it suited them, what chance
>has
>Burma got? We talk about democracies, but
also in truth it is those very
>democracies, which hold down smaller countries,
not only with armies they
>finance,
>but also with economies, which are controlled by
our beloved democracies.
>At
>the end of the day everyone loves the dollar, but
hates its master. As I
>mentioned earlier, are those who rule over us simply
hypocrites controlled
>by
>greed and the lust for power? What chance
the humble family, who only want
>to
>live in peace and watch their children grow to become
parents themselves?
>Even
>to expect that in England today would be wishful
thinking, because ultimate
>freedom means some people do as they like, which
means them having no
>respect
>for others, only the strong survive, the weak are
trampled on by their own
>neighbours, so I do not envy the task ahead for
the pro-democracy movements
>in
>Burma. It is said, "its better to work with
the devil you know, than the
>devil in
>disguise"!
>
>Sandra
>A Ukorg member
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
UK.org.
Collective Comment.
21 July 2003
IS IT THE END, OR IS IT THE BEGINNING?
It is extremely sad that Suu Kyi has to suffer the
humiliation of defeat, together with her incarceration.
She is suffering hardships without committing any
crime, and our hearts go out to her, and the many
others, who may be suffering even more than she, because
they do not have the eyes of the world upon them,
but as a leading figure chosen to represent the 'NLD'
she has been continually beaten on the political battlefield
up to the present day, and we could be witnessing
the final days of the 'NLD', at least in its present
state. The 'NCGUB' has, as witnessed over the
years, never had any inclination or incentive to play
seriously, because they have never bothered to learn
the rules, they have sat back expecting others to
achieve victory on their behalf. We will say
openly, that we have no respect for them at all. To
them, it was a game of survival, for only themselves,
and not for Burma, these signs are now beginning to
emerge in the eyes of the People of Burma, who are
asking the questions, "what have you been doing all
these years, and what of all the money which was given
in good faith to help Burma"? The People of
Burma should call for the 'NCGUB' to open the account
books to scrutiny, as it was after all, given in their
name. The British government and its opposition
have to account for every cent paid into the party
funds. If the so-called 'NCGUB' boasts of its
democratic principles, then it should be accountable
to the people it is supposed to represent, and allow
a select committee of non-members to sit in judgement?
This being their perfect right!
It is because of poor leadership and self gain, that
many of the dedicated and loyal members of the 'NLD'
are falling prey to failure, when in fact they deserve
better, for their hearts are in the right place.
For many people, the 'NLD' was seen as their only
hope for freedom. Those party representatives
whose job it is to promote the 'NLD' have been made
to look foolish in the eyes of the people because
the leadership has seriously let them down.
The people have to choose now, which direction is
best for Burma, considerations reached by hard logic,
and not to be swayed with emotional sentiment, which
will affect their judgment, or forever let their children
suffer the consequences of their decision.
Burma, a country in turmoil!!! As any
honest intelligent mind foresaw, the military regime,
is not an easy prey to corner. It has taken
a single man with the determination and heart of a
lion, the cunning of a fox, the stealth and fluidity
of a bat, to filter this otherwise obvious fact, to
the world, and more importantly, to the people of
Burma. As westerners, who have spent many years
in South East Asia, it is highly respected that this
man has stood up proud, knowing his country must change
its way of thinking, if it is to move into a new era.
He was, and is still, very aware that some of his
conditions for change may clash with old traditions,
but even if he fails to convince his people in his
life time, he will pass out of this life knowing he
has lit the path, which others after him may follow.
He cannot and will not, push his countrymen and women
along the path, only point out the route; it is up
to the people to take the initiative, to walk in the
right direction, toward freedom. He has offered
himself, to take on the task of clearing the way through
the tangled undergrowth, where he alone takes all
the risks, by standing above all those who hide from
danger. He asks no one to do what he himself
will not do for Burma, on top of the many sacrifices
he has already contributed along with those who have
already given their life for a country worth saving.
In our mind, and we have explained before, why we
support the 'PDP' the best thing ever to happen to
Burma, is when 'Bo Aung Din' placed himself voluntarily
into the pit of despair to take on, not only a failing
'NLD' and its satellites, but a military regime, and
the people of Burma, who he would have to convince
that his way is a sure way. To knowingly take
on his own countries traditions and beliefs, he was
only too aware that he had a difficult battle ahead
of him. But who better to advise the people
of Burma, than a man in which the country gave birth
too, and who has fought and offered his life many
times to his country, and has been a core part of
all the armed and political offensive to free Burma
for decades? His gradual rise to the surface
of politics has been a life of learning every aspect
of Burma's dilemma. Burma does not want
non-Burmese dictating to them, so who better than
'Bo Aung Din' has the same credentials and heart,
to absorb all the blows of a formidable regime, and
an angry populace, even though he feels the pain,
without withdrawing?
We view this man, as we in Britain viewed Winston
Churchill. These rare individuals appear when
all else is lost. They are men who fear nothing.
They are men who know sacrifices must be made, but
will not divert from their objective. They sort
out the weak but do not condemn them, they find the
strong, but do not praise them, for everyone must
do their duty for Burma and not themselves.
There is a place and a task for every individual,
which only exceptional leaders have the ability to
nominate accordingly. They will not seek easy options,
which may collapse in time; they build for future
generations, and not simply for their own benefit
or status.
These men are a rare breed, and only appear when great
strength of character is needed against a formidable
foe. His loyalty is to Burma as a nation, independent
from outside influences, but does not deny that assistance
is necessary just as a student learns from a teacher,
or a business borrows from a bank. He has no enemy's
only opposition. To choose an enemy among your
own, is like turning on your own family, when in life
it is the family bond which should make them strong
as one, and it takes great effort, courage, diplomacy
and personal pain, to stand alone in the struggle
to unite a broken family, even though you are tired
and weary from the long battle.
Burma could be an example to the world. It is
centre stage with an audience of many millions, all-waiting
to see happiness come out of misery. The rehearsals
will be tough, and many actors will fall away into
the wings, as stronger players take their place on
the stage, until a full cast of dedicated players
give the audience a totally captivating performance,
and show the world they need only the tools, the work,
they can undertake themselves, to great effect, and
of course, pride.
The day will come, we have no doubt, when the people
of Burma can walk the streets, looked upon by visitors
as a brave and determined nation whose smile is as
rewarding to the onlooker as it is a sign of happiness
for the people of Burma, but this time, without hiding
the fear.
Fight to win, not solely just to survive, for that
only prolongs the suffering of your children!
Let all the God's be with you.
UK.org.
UK org.
Collective comment.
14 July 2003
After long days of apprehension, we are still none
the wiser as to the welfare of ASSK. We can
only hope that she, among the many others before
her, and those who are still incarcerated in harsh
and torturous conditions, can look toward a brighter
future, but, unless a conceivable option to the
'NLD', and its satellites poor performance and political
inadequacies is recognised, Burma's future will
sink deeper into the abyss.
It has been many days since ASSK's dilemma, (one
which was easily calculated as simply a matter of
time) we have studied just about every publication
which voices opinions on Burma, both official and
unofficial, and we have not read one statement in
any of them, as to any contingency plan which may
have been brought into play at a time of crisis.
Perhaps because, as with they're past record since
the election, the NLD do not have one. How
then, as seen by the 'SPDC' do they expect the people
of Burma to believe they are competent enough to
run a country if they cannot stand strong without
Suu Kyi, who is victimised by the regime because
they see her as an impostor, and a hypocrite, who
was not part of the NLD when it was elected, but
joined six months after. She stands for free
elections and democracy, but stares conspicuously
above everyone in contradiction of the democratic
principles, because she was not elected by the people,
but was cleverly positioned when it was realised
that the NLD could not, at the time, head a government,
and needed a national symbol to hide their inadequacies,
until western string pullers, could be put into
place. To say the regime was not aware of
this, only indicates that observers are extremely
naďve, and greatly underestimated the military regime.
By placing ASSK onto a stage and creating a star,
which is what the influential media has done, did
in fact determine her destiny, in contrast, all
the hyped up PR has bitten through to the bone,
and the insult resulting from it, (and many of the
regime leaders are, in mild terms, fuming) has struck
a raw nerve bringing about a tremendous urge to
seek revenge, although, not on ASSK herself, but
the world, Suu Kyi is their instrument, handed on
a platter to them by outside influences!
It has been a long and insulting experience for
the regime, however, we now fear that the regime
is reaching its pinnacle of hate, (of the west)
indeed we are still not convinced of her safety
now, until a recognised body has met with her in
prison, preferably a person/s who have no business
interests in Burma, as concerns are growing.
Although, it seems more likely the regime would
get most satisfaction from simply making life more
difficult and uncomfortable for ASSK, than seriously
harming her. They do not see her either
as a political or militarily threat, and as all
can see, the 'NLD' becomes even less commanding
without her. Some stories coming out of Burma
say, the regime intended to kill the lady.
If the regime, which has control of so much power,
with no opposition what so ever inside their own
territories, wanted someone dead, be it an individual
or many thousands, would achieve that aim with ease.
So it is wise not to become blinded with heated
anger. It is a pity that the 'NLD' does not
have a leadership who has the strength of character
to build a party on its merit, and can be seen to
function even if some of its members are imprisoned.
Disagreement should not be associated with disrespect.
Disagreement calls for compromise between intelligent
people opposing each other, disrespect on the other
hand is not being prepared for the unexpected! Every
soldier, sailor and airman, at least in the British
forces, is advised to respect his enemy; no matter
how weak they appear, also to respect strength,
which very often has a tendency to be associated,
mistakenly, with brashness. It must be recognised
that the NLD and its satellites have shown nothing
but contempt for the military regime. Rightly
or wrongly is not for us to judge, but it is this
bitter attitude which has left ASSK wide open for
ridicule at the hands of the regime, and an easy
political target, which is being proven now.
This is precisely why 'Bo Aung Din' concentrated
on rebuilding the PDP, after resigning from all
other political affiliations. Being a dedicated
Burmese democracy activist, whose loyalty to others
held him back for a number of years, he finds it
belittling and embarrassing, and surely, extreme
frustration, that his country cannot take its own
course unaided toward debate, where intellect and
commonsense, rules above wild mania. It is
considered, and we among many others agree, that
this dilemma is due to the massive amount of hype
created over the status of ASSK, with much less
attributed to the NLD as a party. Her PR has
been choreographed to the point of meltdown.
At this point in time, after thirteen years, the
country is still no closer to sensible debate, let
alone democracy, indeed comments made, with assumptions
that the regime leaders are very nervous, and the
assault on ASSK showed that, is I think, a classic
example of not knowing your enemy as he is, but
as it is expected, and that again, is a classic
mistake of underestimation, which reveals elements
of brashness, but without the strength, from 'NLD'
followers, and this attitude will never bring debate
to the table.
If anything, actions now being taken against ASSK,
show a clear sign of nothing less than intimidation
against the west, because they obviously understand
that their action such as it was, would invite more
attention and draw closer media and political condemnation
by a few politicians from around the world, and
that is all they are, minor knocks of no consequence.
Methods against South Africa? Used as an example
by some, in letters to the 'org', where change in
government was brought about by sanctions, were
only camouflage to the real fight, and only appeared
to work because it had the racist echo, where we
were dealing with a supposed alien white culture
seen as colonial intruders in an all black continent,
the politics being very different from that of Burma,
where the ANC was the only recognisable option,
in SA's case against apartheid, as opposed to a
black military dictatorship, where Mandela was eventually
used to pacify the people in order to control integration
more peacefully and without too much humiliation
to the whites, when his task was seen to be concluded
he was gently guided away from the core politics
where he was simply a tool. Not forgetting
of course, the cold war battlefields of Africa,
a major contributing factor in African politics,
were winding down, although, still very much a part
of African politics under another guise. But
had the cold war not diminished, then South Africa,
would today be as it was.
Even so, had the geography and Africa's economical
state, been different, and neighbours were friendly
and capable of supporting SA's immediate needs,
then sanctions would not have contributed to the
collapse of apartheid. None of these story
lines fit Burma, but the same scenario is being
attempted by using Suu Kyi, and it will not work!
There are many former NLD senior figures, which
are making advances toward the PDP, fact not fiction.
At this point in time, the Burmese people would
accept anyone who could rid them of the regime,
just as the saying goes; people who are drowning,
will grasp at anything to survive. This
has been clearly recognised by many Burmese individuals
who see their chance of monopolising on this opening,
hence, all the 'coalition' and other off shoots
springing up! The country is in a pit
of power seeking pandemonium, being fed on by the
lack of logic or commonsense. .
Quite rightly also, the NLD as a political party
should not be underestimated, it too could have
something up its sleeve. and if any one appreciated
that, 'Bo Aung Din' of the PDP certainly does,
but only because of the outside influences and financial
input. As a political party inside Burma today,
it has shown itself as unable to manoeuvre without
ASSK and her entourage of public relations gurus.
The hope of some surprise however, is always in
anticipation
The same attitude however, toward not, underestimating
a particular group, should also be the adopted view
in regard to the PDP, and is indeed being realised
by many former and serving members within the NLD.
A minor concern of 'Bo Aung Din', although only
a secondary concern, he would like to express his
mind to the non-Burmese speaking people, that not
enough of them understand completely the issues
at hand, and being in possession of fragments from
Burmese history, without knowing the inside story
only creates ambiguities and allows them to get
caught up in the emotional PR of ASSK and in doing
so, are bypassing the realities, which is dragging
Burma deeper into the pit.
He would like nothing better than the NLD to be
placed in government; because he knows the PDP can
rise to the election expectations of the people,
and not be ruled by outsiders.
It is said, that Burma must win its own war from
inside, this is precisely the reason 'Bo Aung Din'
reprogrammed the PDP, because the NLD have been
too dependant on foreign nations. ASSK hinted
that she wanted an open democracy. Her views
have only appeared to move into neutral since the
PDP became of age, and because she believes that
the assortment of offshoots are controlled by a
majority of NLD votes. So of course she can
be seen to alleviate slightly from her previous
indoctrination, which was beginning to be been seen
as another one party state. She above all
is very aware of the PDP, but is trapped in the
shadow of her own image.
People write to the 'org' asking what the 'PDP'
have to offer which would draw attention to itself,
saying that U Nu's association is not particularly
a viable foundation on which to build. 'Bo Aung
Din' has never had any illusions, or indeed any
intentions, of using past names to promote the PDP,
in the manner some of you suggested, only the 'legitimacy'
of the party being founded by him as a government
in exile, after U Nu's mandate was taken away from
him, and the fact that he was never consulted over
the 1990 elections, and as a legitimate elected
prime minister, irrelevant of the time period, should
have been given the opportunity to officially stand
down after dissolving his government, and authorising
the military to act as interim government until
the elections were over.
With the 'PDP', today it is the party, which
is being promoted for what it has to offer today,
and not who or what its founder was! 'Bo Aung
Din' is new blood, just as we change prime ministers
in Britain, the party stays the same, but new blood
generates new ideas.
The PDP if you follow any of its releases, always
promotes real political criticisms and agendas and
does not build on personalities, or emotion, which
is new to Burmese politics, and is something, which
is slowly being realised as the only way forward
if the country is to emerge into the future.
Among those seriously involved in Burma's politics,
(non-Burmese excluded) Bo Aung Din is highly respected
as a key player, and is without doubt, cause for
concern to many who think they can walk away with
everything. Promotion of his personality
or credentials is not deliberately catered for as
'Bo Aung Din', but rather as leader of the PDP.
That is the fundamental difference between him and
ASSK.
Polite request: Although we truly appreciate
your faith in us for being honest in our answers,
even if they may criticise the 'PDP', but for future
reference, please direct any mail where questions
are 'investigative' to emlmpdp@aol.com
Although Uk org is in close contact with the 'PDP',
and we assure people that our questions to them,
are of the deepest nature, but we cannot obviously,
speak on their behalf, although they do answer questions
if we put it to them.
Many letters ask why the party did not seriously
compete with the NLD at the elections in 1990?
This was, we are assured, the cause of much internal
bickering on this subject, because they were busy
concentrating on the armed struggle. People
must be aware, that in 1990, everyone believed the
elections to be no more than a passing confidence
trick on behalf of the regime, created simply to
make them look as though they were moving forward
to democracy, and designed to take away any threat
the 'PDP' armed struggle would pose if allowed to
grow stronger, because unlike the armed ethnic groups,
the 'PDP' would operate from inside the walls of
the regime, making movement very risky for regime
leaders. The result being, by putting the
country first, above any personal ambitions, the
'PDP' of the time, believed the NLD, with ASSK as
its symbol, would be able to draw better support
from the people, east & west, under the banner
of her father, 'Aung San', and it would serve the
country better if the 'PDP' stayed in the jungle.
Had there been no heir to 'Aung San', then 'U Nu',
as his No 2, and who did actually take his place
as leader after the assassination, until the elections,
would have been the nearest candidate. As
it was, 'U Nu' believed he held the right of premiership
and that any new election was illegal. So
it was in fact a fluke of history, which placed
ASSK where she is today and not political strategy.
Ironically as it is today with ASSK, her father
was the only visible option open to Britain, as
caretaker of Burma soon after the second world war,
until something better came along, he was in reality,
dumped in the driving seat. It was not
his drive or convictions, which people are reminded
to remember, as an advocate of communism for example,
or the fact that he sided with the Japanese before
changing allegiances yet again after Japan was defeated.
Very few of the inner circles of that period are
with us today, and would prefer to keep those days
quiet. With Aung San, it is his assassination,
which fires up the emotion.
The world always remember those leaders who were
assassinated, to be revered as martyrs, even back
to Roman times, and are not always remembered for
their achievements or their failures.
There have been before, and will be again, people
who are both, deserving and not so deserving, used
as icons for the sake of building and/or securing
a nations pride, this is the way we are
As for another of your questions, regarding the
infrastructure of government, and the manning of
essential posts. Even though the regime head all
the senior posts in government, the infrastructure
with its working parts, are already there. Of course
compromises will have to be in place with certain
figures, but in general most of the working bureaucracy
will be able to function in most institutions.
Once suitable heads for these posts are nominated,
the old wheels can be oiled, under the roof of democracy.
It will take time whoever takes office. And outside
assistance will be 'invited', and not dictating.
That is not the same as being a puppet government
to either western powers or indeed from, China,
Russia or India, or maybe all three. Burma holds
some of the best minds on this planet, and should
not be 'underestimated'. Not all are politically
motivated, or affiliated to any party, other than
calling for peace and democracy, their contribution
will be to help build Burma providing it has moved
to peace.
UK.org.
Out
of these Deadly Incidents, Where Are They Going?
I was interestingly and unexpectedly posed a question,
WHY, though given a chance, SPDC didn't walk out
clean when the deadly incidents were just between
Suu Kyi's supporters and opponents as its press
statement depicted; why it had to shut down and
seal the NLD headquarters and offices; why it
had to arrest some NLD members, including NLD
Executive Committee members, living in the regions
far away from the scene of incidents.
My understanding of events is that first of all,
as Grant Peck, an Associated Press writer,
reasonably argued: when trouble brews, the ruling
generals turn to the style of crisis management
they know best: getting touch and rounding up
the usual suspects.[i]
Second, there is a real threat to SPDC or as it
prefers to call it, "a threat to the stability
and prosperity of the Union of Myanmar". The Members
of Parliament Union (NLD MP-elects in exile) call
for "concerted action (…) to counter junta…"[ii]
and didn't a MP-elect from Karen State sustained:
_ "We got to do something as our leaders were
treated like this. Otherwise, we will no longer
be human beings."[iii]
Hence, the shut-down of colleges and universities,
the closure of NLD offices, the round-up of NLD
members are to forestall the possible reactions
of the NLD members, which could lead to the ruling
military council's disadvantage. What is happening
in Burma is not surprising at all if seen in the
light of this line of reasoning. After all, doesn’t
SPDC value the stability above everything else?
The possible roll-back to the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal">status quo ante of totalitarian rule
can be observed in the reactions of the oversea
Burmese opposition groups too. Their reactions
are but the old (but good?) methods ranging form
staging the protests with approximately 30-50
exiles in front of the Burmese Embassies, releasing
press statements (These days, I received about
10 press releases a day from the organizations
of which I am hardly aware of the existence),
scuffling in the media they have access to, to
calling for tougher sanctions and predicting that
events of 1988 would reoccur, etc. Certainly some
are even thinking about resorting to Hamas-style
violence. It is just because they feel that they
must react immediately even without the reliable
knowledge about what actually happened. After
all, how the deadly incidents in a small country
very few people know where, otherwise, could draw
attention from the international government and
mass media without these dramatizations?
While it is next-to-impossible to substantiate
the claims of the opposition camp and their collaborative
media that the anti-Suu-Kyi demonstrations were
operated under the direct command of SPDC
members, nonetheless, it seems reasonable to infer
that the anti-Suu-Kyi demonstrations were premeditated
(as pro-Suu-Kyi welcomes were). It wouldn't be
difficult to make follow-up of this inference
by investigating whether or not Ms. Suu Kyi's
opponents are local people as Burmese government
press statement claims, through their residence
address as appear in their citizen identification
card and their family registry, or whether or
not they are members of any pro-government organization
through the regional membership list of pro-government
organization. This task should be left to the
investigative journalists or the chance to investigate
should be given to respectable, unbiased international
non-governmental organizations such as ICRC if
and when SPDC is ready to prove its neutrality
and non-involvement in these deadly accidents.
Why did I call the news mongered by the oversea
Burmese opposition and their collaborative media
as dramatizations? Let's me take the liberty to
point out an inaccuracy of a statement of one
of its leading organizations NCGUB and then allow
the readers make a syllogistic conclusion. First,
the tolls of deaths in the accidents which even
usually-secretive Burmese military regime admits
as deadly, might say something about the opposition's
dramatization of events. The tolls of the deaths
and injured in the deadly incidents, which NCGUB
first released on June 1st and only thereafter
other opposition groups and their collaborative
media picked up (if the reader follows the media
reports about Burma closely, he/she will find
that there is no account of 70 deaths before NCGUB's
press release), are nothing but the exaggeration
of the tolls appeared in SPDC's press release;
more specifically, the NCGUB seemingly multiplied
by ten the head counts of the deaths by the Burmese
military regime which is a usual suspect of distortion
when concerned with facts and figures. How could
eyewitnesses, frequently cited by the oversea
opposition media, claim without medical knowledge,
an individual located in the scene of deadly riots
dead? Did they test the blood purses or listen
to the heartbeats of those individuals they claimed
dead? Not really! They themselves would have been
running for or fighting for their life rather
than checking the purses and listening to the
heartbeats of the injured. The closest account
they can make is to estimate that the number of
seriously injured (which they think as dead) would
be about 70. And this count is closer to SPDC's
count of the injured. Second, NCGUB's statement
without reservation on whereabouts of a senior
military officer should raise the suspicion of
a careful reader. According to a cherished tradition
of the military institution everywhere in the
world, only the commanding officers and the immediate
superiors have the exact knowledge of the whereabouts
of a military officer. How could NCGUB in this
world know for sure where that particular military
officer was in time of those deadly incidents?
There was no way! Unless NCGUB itself was the
co-conspirator in this alleged military conspiracy
against (Daw) Aung San Suu Kyi!
These refutations of NCGUB and the oversea opposition
groups and their collaborative media, should not
necessarily make SPDC's recount of the events
truthful. The best I can say is that the truth
lies somewhere in between. The rest I figured
out and Irrawaddy Magazine Editor Aung Zaw concurred
in part just as a show-down of force by both camps,
unintentionally (but predictably given the Burmese
mind-set and incomprehension of non-violence strategies),
going down the road of violence one step after
another. The sparkles created spars which in turn
led to clashes ending up in head-on collisions
eventually. So, those who created the sparkles
should acknowledge, even without publicly admitting,
that they are responsible for the deaths and the
injured. The guilty, those who should be personally
guilty about the losses of life even when they
are holding the other camp accountable for political
advantage, comprise both the Burmese military
leaders and NLD leaders including (Daw) Aung San
Suu Kyi. The Burmese military leaders are responsible
for the losses of life in a sense, as Prof. David
Steinberg, put it, that "…Whoever might have
caused it, however it might have started is quite
irrelevant, since they are the ones who have the
control."[iv]
Contrary to the popular opinion, it is asserted
that Aung San Suu Kyi is not without a fault eit
her. She could have stayed in Mandalay for a while
longer in stead of continuing her trips as planned.
Ms. Suu Kyi's speech in Mandalay in May 28, 2003,
[v]
indicates that she appeared to know what was going
on and what was going to happen. In her speech,
Ms. Suu Kyi said:
"We want the people who drive along our car convoy
to obey the traffic rules. I don’t want you
to do anything that would annoy people. I don’t
want you to do anything that is an eyesore to
people. We must not have the attitude of showing
our strength (power) because we have it. Those
who have the strength have to keep it with humility.
(…) I thank all the people who support us. At
the same time, I want you to support us with restrain
for more dignity and improvements. (Applauses)
We treasure your support very much. But I don’t
want you to hurt anyone; especially don’t do
anything that is ugly and cumbersome to the people."
It can be extrapolated that her attempts to rein
in her own supporters apparently were not successful
and the situation ran out of control, to the chagrin
of everyone, especially of those who died. I am
not ready to go as far as to conclude that (Daw)
Aung San Suu Kyi was this time as well carried
away by her supporters -- overactive and overenthusiastic
but apparently less realistic and politically
poorly educated – although I came close to it.
However, it is questionable why, after giving
a speech that indicated what is likely to lay
ahead, Ms. Suu Kyi didn't stop her trips or pause
for a while and restructure those around her or
at a minimum review her supporters the non-violence
shield principles widely employed by non-violence
movements across the globe.
On the other hand, although according to this
excerpt of Ms. Suu Kyi's speech, the Burmese government's
official version of the incidents in Budalin and
Mandalay about the traffic violations, the use
of force and public disturbances created by (Daw)
Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters, sound truthful,
let's me reiterated that the Burmese military
government is not without its own share of responsibility
in those highly undesirable, deadly accidents.
My short suggestion to (Daw) Aung San Suu Kyi
is to act more like a politician than a political
activist. In other words, when concerned with
reconciliation and negotiation to transition,
she is suggested to take more pragmatic approach
of a politician rather than relatively more idealist
approach of a political activist. Unfortunately,
she enjoys more the role of an ideal-position-taking,
widely-admired political activist than that of
a deal-making, relatively-more-controversial politician.
Things would have been changed for better if (Daw)
Aung San Suu Kyi like a politician knew where
and when to move forwards, where and when to yield,
where and when to ask for a compromise rather
than always moving forwards, always demanding
like a political activist with righteousness and
a self-perceived noble cause.
SPDC has a few options at hand:
It can reiterate the policies of the past, placing
(Daw) Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD leaders under house
arrest; the NLD offices remain close indefinitely;
It can release Ms. Suu Kyi even if (U) Tin Oo
and NLD youth members who accompanied her are
charged with violence; and allow the normal functions
of NLD headquarters resume even though most of
the branches remain closed;
Use the proximity and availability given by so-called
"protective custody" as an opportunity to engage
a substantive dialogue with her without possible
external interference as they planned before the
blood-spattered incidents.
The second and third options are presented as
alternatives not because Aung San Suu Kyi and
others shouldn't be free but because SPDC would
certainly calculate if it is politically feasible
for them to remove the so-called "protective custody."
No, it is not politically feasible for them in
the possible scenarios of further reactions of
NLD members and supporters and more importantly,
in the face of Western pressure and arrogant demands
to release her immediately. Yielding Western pressures
and heavy-handed demands invite more, SPDC certainly
knows.
Accordingly, U.S and the West, however loudly
they are shouting "indignant, unacceptable, etc,"
would not get the ears of the government decision-makers
who reasonably assess that to listen to the leaders
of the West that support the opposition camp is
not of their interests; whatever concessions they
make will not appease the West. (More significantly,
"the junta values stability above all else."[vi])
The tougher sanctions from Anglo-American countries
will not reach their objectives either. This time,
they might even face an more aggressive reactions
from Burmese authorities; the reactions would
include the downgrading of diplomatic relations
by calling Burmese Ambassadors back from those
countries; the closure of services of British
and American Embassies one after another: the
request for non-essential diplomats to leave the
country; the closure of Information and Public
Relations Services (i.e. British Council and U.S.I.S);
the closure of Consulates; indefinite suspension
of cooperation in narcotic issues; the unilateral
withdrawal from anti-terrorism pact; the ending
of all diplomatic relations; the departure of
U.S and British citizens from the country.
Seemingly SPDC might, to a certain extent, heed
to the words of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad who, reportedly on Thursday, agreed to
call for the early release of (…) Aung San Suu
Kyi.[vii]
According to an AP wire news report, 'Thai Foreign
Minister Surakiart Sathirathai said Thursday he
had received a letter from his Myanmar counterpart,
Foreign Minister Win Aung, saying the actions
taken against Suu Kyi and her supporters were
for the sake of "security and safety" (…) and
temporary.'[viii]
This is not to jump to the conclusion that that
Burmese generals might knee down to the Asian
pressures. Those who likely to reach the premature
conclusion should recall the Vietnam veteran Collins
Powell's words: "It is very difficult to crack
the will of these generals." But certainly, as
David Simmons reasonably pointed out, "Burma problem
needs Asian solution," although he concluded his
article a misleading suggestion that Burmese military
leaders might yield to Asian pressures. The argument
here is that there is a better chance of SPDC
heeding to what Asian, especially ASEAN, leaders
have to say reasonably and objectively than the
arrogant Western demands which is likely to face
the following response from the Burmese military
leaders:
"We don't like to be told what to do and what
not to do by the West or anyone else. Now that
the West arrogantly asked for the immediate release
of Aung San Suu Kyi, we will keep her in "protective
custody" for security and safety reasons. But
we will proceed the meetings with Aung San Suu
Kyi as planned before those unfortunate incidents
broke out. We will invite her reliable deputies
such as (U) Lwin and (U) Nyunt Wai to attend the
meetings. Over time, we will invite the entire
NLD CEC to the meetings." One thing is for sure:
Burmese military government, although it alone
shouldn't be held accountable if there is none,
must show the concrete results rather than the
nebulous assurances of democratization of the
society, civilianization of the state apparatus,
liberalization of the government agencies and
reconciliation with the opposition.
I would like to make a more optimistic assessment
of the situation (as Irrawaddy Magazine Editor
Aung Zaw concurred with me in part). "The situation
seemingly ran out of control from SPDC that staged
the anti-Suu-Kyi demonstrations and from ASSK
who lost control of her own crowd and failed to
prevent her supporters from resorting to violence.
Although Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD Central Executive
Committee members, along with some other NLD members,
are missing or detained, let's me point out that
a MP-elect from Chin State was released as planned
and upon the completion of his 7-year-prison sentence
and that many individuals inside Burma, including
a well-known writer and poet (Dagon) Ta-Yar and
SNLD Chairman Khun Tun Oo, NLD MP-elects were
allowed to receive the interview calls from Radio
Free Asia and Democratic Voice of Burma as of
before the deadly incidents. There is a good chance
that Mr. Razali Ismail might be authorized to
see Aung San Suu Kyi on a condition that Mr. Razali
Ismail would refuse to answer any question about
the meetings to the reporters as of before. After
all, SPDC should know it is better to have someone
with reliability and credibility like Mr. Razali
Ismail met Aung San Suu Kyi and confirmed their
claim that Ms. Suu Kyi was ("sain et sauf") not
injured than having the oversea Burmese opposition
groups mongering the rumors about her injuries
and even her death for their political advantage.
Taking a step backwards from my optimistic assessment,
I would like to point out that in stead of creating
a win-win situation, both camps in Burma might
be creating a situation in which both sides loose
and more importantly, Burmese people suffer from
the socio-economic hardships and mismanagements
which the rival camps generated. They might
think that "We have nothing but only two options:
_ (1) It is to allow Burma be under the military
regime indefinitely while the military officers
prospering and ordinary Burmese people suffering;
(2) It is to make both the ordinary Burmese people
and the military face the hardships for a shorter
time and finally remove the military from political
scene and rebuild Burma from ashes. In either
way, Burma and its ordinary people have to suffer.
(…) I will, personally, choose the second option."
as said Ba Hein in an online forum discussing
Burmese affairs.[ix]
Who am I to say that Burmese military leaders
will not reach the same conclusion? After all,
am I not trying to get the best out of the worst
situation within two years?
Reference and Notes:
[i] Peck, Grant. "Myanmar's Generals Revert to
Style They Know Best: Tough." AP. June 4, 2003,
2:20 a.m., Eastern Time
[ii]
Members Of Parliament Union (MPU-BURMA) , media
release, 1 June 2003
[iii]
DVB, Oslo, 06.02.2003: Note: This is the unofficial
translation of what that MP-elect said the program.
[iv]
Source: Irrawaddy Online Magazine, "Worldwide
Condemnation of Burmese Junta." 06.04.2003
[v]
Democratic Voice of Burma, Oslo, 1430 GMT, 05.28.2003
http://64.4.46.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=5a3b61d92726505a1b53c4ea0c8bf61b&lat=1066401902&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2edvb%2eno%2fscoop%2f2003%2fmay%2f20030528b%2ehtml
[vi]
Peck, Grant. "Myanmar's Generals Revert to Style
They Know Best: Tough." AP. June 4, 2003, 2:20
AM ET
[vii]
Jiji Press, Tokyo, June 5 , 2003: This is an unconfirmed
news.
[viii]
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) Wed Jun 4, 2003,
5 :45 PM ET