UK.org.
Member comment
30th. July 2004
Htun Aung Gyaw does of course speak some hard truths about brave voices with weak actions, but in contrast, his own views could be held by some people, as in the same context.
Executing warfare is phenomenally more difficult than merely speaking of it. Simply having the courage and man power is a universe away from practising warfare in real life. Guerrilla tactics are indeed effective if delivered with calculation, and executed by well trained and seasoned fighters. The situation in Iraq is I'm afraid, not an example of successful guerrilla action, far from it actually, the media tend to hype what is a mediocre resistance into major impacts, the bang of a punctured tyre would excite the media, and the US & UK forces are far from being intimidated. The size of a modern western army depicts neither its strengths nor its weakness, which in turn does not calculate attacks against it in terms of damage but more as an inconvenience. but of course, an experienced military mind would know this.
Guerrilla warfare is a precise art, and without going into detail, these tactics have never been used in theatre effectively in the country, in question, by any of the armed opposition, mainly because the major armed factions are ethnic nations who simply want to protect their own territories without attempting to disrupt the military controlled government powerbase by using such methods. Non-ethnic opposition to the regime have operated under the umbrella of the ethnic but were mostly integrated leaving them unable to act as independent forces, and became defenders of ethnic borders instead of freedom fighters.
The country in question is in fact, a prime environment for guerrilla tactics. Guerrilla tactics are more successful in environments where the national population are sympathetic to the covert special forces, even more so if of the same nationality, its also an advantage when opposing soldiers on the ground are of the same nationality. If covert units want to oppose a regimes powerbase, it must do so on its soil, it is of course convenient if these units can fall back into a 'liberated area' but, in a real life scenario it would be better for security of operations if units actually kept away from all non involved populations. There is of course, a great deal more involved in setting up such units, which again would be done under the most secret conditions.
The PDP joined forces with the ethnic nations many years ago, and had to depend on their alliance in order to survive, and have been fighting for years and lost many of its brave men, so anyone who spoke bravely only had to contact them, and show their willingness to help in the fight, surprisingly very few exiles came forward?
If, as many consider it is, necessary to take the fight to the regime, master plans have to first be in place, plans which take years to construct. Other than the ethnic armed units, who will not take the fight to the core of the problem, there is only one section within the pro-democracy circle, who have the knowledge, combined with experience in all the areas needed, who can confront the regime on its own playing field, so those who spread tough words would be respected much more, if they practiced what they preached and offer their blood in war, because war is what it is!
The NLD preach non-violence because they have no other means to engage otherwise. ASSK's father would certainly not have taken the passive route his daughter has taken, if he couldn't do something immediately, he would have found a way long before 12 years had passed? That could of course be judged as irrelevant today, but as many have said, a passive stance is a leaning post for a dictatorship, or crudely put, a pissing post for a dog.
No, the West will not help the people to gain their freedom, and the East will continue to support the regime for their own ends. Burma's freedom is of no consequence to any of them. The fight must come from within.
Having such a large army as the SPDC, also means adequate supplies for the resistance?
Josh,
A concerned member of;
UK.org.
UK.org.
26, July
2004
Sir,
Many thanks for your feedback in ref, to a
members comment. We appreciate all aspects of
opinion.
UK.org, prides itself with a strong belief in democratic
principles. Accepting all arguments from every corner, and adhering
to people's rights is what makes a democracy, it becomes a mockery only
when politicians to not heed the word of the people.
We are sorry
to give the impression that we, and members, appear to criticise Daw Aung
Suu Kyi. It is not the character of the individual which comes under
scrutiny nor is it her principles, although in many democracies
politicians have been known to succumb to other influences, and therefore
stand open to hard criticism, however ASSK as a representative of the
people accepted her role, therefore she must accept criticism of a
political nature, which we are sure she does. She is her father's daughter
but she lacks his vigour, and resourcefulness, and to expect from her,
what one would expect from him, is an unfair request of her, and a setback
for the country?
It is every one's right to expect success from
their chosen representative, on their behalf. As you are well aware,
if we in Britain become disappointed with our leaders, we vote them out of
office, we are not concerned whether or not they are nice people, or that
their principles are just, or indeed if they are from honoured parents,
they are there to run our country on our behalf, if they fail they must
go. No successful company would keep employing a director who fails to
reach targets. It is up to that individual to either promote new
tactics by taking on a different perspective, and view the situation from
another angle, or to move over and let someone else with better skills
take over. We are talking about the destiny of millions of people,
not the honouring of a few?
We, at UK.org, have great
respect for ASSK in her stance of defiance, but we are also realists
living in a pragmatic world, where only actions bring results.
Nothing comes to those who wait, only death, that in between, has
to be fought for.
Peace is never given, only won!
Apart from
its obvious history, we support the PDP for one simple reason, its
merits:
It has no private agenda either as a party or among its
members.
Its seeks democracy not power.
It takes from no one, but
gives everything.
It seeks solutions and justice but not revenge.
It searches for answers without prejudice.
It looks for
partners not adversaries.
Its members seek peace, but are prepared to
die as many have, so others can live.
It does not feed on the suffering
of its people.
These are just some of the qualities we can find inside the
PDP of today. There way be varying views to history, but unlike many
people through the ages, the PDP adapts to the present, with the future in
mind without too much emphasis on the past, that alas, is to learn from,
not to live by today?
Respectfully
UK.org.
UK.org.
Member
comment:
23/07/04
The military regime in Burma,
believe very firmly, that its position is safe so long as it
controls what it, considers as the only opposition. As
mentioned in previous comments over the years, westerners (I am actually of Burmese
decent) consider South East Asian cultural instincts of submitting
to those they consider their superiors, and not to question their
authority, be it inflicted through intellectual superiority, or fear of
pain and/or imprisonment, as being a major hurdle, but of course cultures
cannot be changed over night, however, the military regime is suitably
aware that this trend has slowly been diminishing, in Burma's case, since
the overthrow of Prime Minister U Nu, back in 1960.
Being
Burma's first and to this day, only elected Prime Minister,
'U Nu' would have guided the Burmese people into the modern world where
the perfect right to criticise their leaders would have opened up a
new freedom. Unfortunately, as repeated many times, certain
military figures of the time dreaded the thought of their power base being
undermined, where upon, they themselves would become servants of the
country. In 1962, using the excuse, among other things, that civil unrest
was increasing, it ousted 'U Nu' from office and installed itself as the
new governing body. 'U Nu was imprisoned, and upon his release
dedicated his life to bringing down the regime and to reinstate a
democratic government. He continued to lay claim to office up until his
death a few years ago, a claim no one can honestly deny was his, until,
democratically elected from office. To ignore or reject this
claim today, is to ignore or reject democracy, which would beg the
question; "what is Burma fighting for now?
Since Prime Minister U Nu's government was
ousted, it has been the Burman population which has been tightly
controlled, to prevent Burman democratic
indoctrination. Those rebellious ethnic nations were at least
able to act within their own political infrastructure without serious
intervention, in what became known as liberated areas.
The
military regime have always been acutely aware, of where, the threat to
their power base would come, and it was not from the ethnic nations, this
is the true reason they strive relentlessly to legitimise their existence
by attempts to implant their own political stooges, not so much to satisfy
the world, but to pacify the Burman majority on their
doorstep, The 1990 election was a prime example, much
the same as today's objective with the present convention! They can
propagate and change their titles as much as they like, it will not stop
the advancement to their doorstep where even their SS types guards
will be off little value.
Although it would appear to outsiders
that other political parties, besides the NLD, exist, giving the
impression of multi party involvement, it is actually only one party, but
with numerous satellites, many sharing the same initials, NLD, which they
combine with other initials, and all of whom can only survive under the
shadow of publicity showered upon Aung San Suu Kyi, whose only political
asset is the fact of being the daughter of Aung San, a person held in high
regard by all. This is in no way disrespectful, but a simple
fact, which unfortunately many Burmese people tend to ignore, hence the
stagnation. The NLD, if hypothetically were a company, its board of
directors representing each of the company departments, (various NLD
satellites) in order to disrupt reform, the regime simply harasses the
NLD, and restricts the actions of board members. Because they
are governed by one set of rules only, and move in a straight line, they
are easily disrupted.
The Parliamentary Democracy Party
(PDP) which my grand parents have been supporters of since the
time Of U Nu and are still active in Burma, has been actively
engaged in armed struggle for many years, first instigated by Premier,
U Nu. This was the most natural route to take,
political strength, as history of the world proves, invariably sprouts
from a military advantage, something Aung San certainly
accepted. However, its role since appears to have focused more
on the political front as opposed to the armed wing, which I personally
believe delayed progress by drawing away individual intellectual effort
aimed at a much needed strategic political target, even though I still
believe the armed defence wing has an important moral boosting role
together with its designed role.
The fact that the PDP supported
the NLD from its birth instead of standing as a separate front line party
is also now recognised by many strategists, (with hind sight of
course) as
another setback. Had the PDP with all its history and ready
made infrastructure entered itself in the elections of 1990, it would have
lowered the risk of the regimes leverage over just one major party, but
the regime would never have permitted the PDP to participate for this
reason, but the idea of Aung Sans daughter representing a political party
was at the time, deemed as a sure winner, so competition would only
disrupt events, or even prevent an election taking place at all, so, the
PPP as it was then, continued its armed opposition alongside the Karen
nation, and allowed the NLD a clean run in the political
field. Winning democracy would have meant that future
elections would have allowed the PDP to have moved back into front line
politics anyway.
It was, again with hindsight, naïve
to believe that the regime would have give way to the NLD, or any
democratic party for that matter which 'it' did not
control. Naivety stayed in play even after the farcical
elections by pro-democracy groups, with belief that foreign pressure alone
would bring down the regime. With supporting roles played by
Burma's close neighbours, no amount of western pressure would change the
status quo.
Without any risk of armed
retaliation within its own Burman territory threatening the regimes very
front door, it was relatively easy to tighten the noose around the NLD and
its satellites, and quell any possible uprising which may have occurred
due to foreign influence. I strongly believe now, that the whole process
of allowing elections in 1990 was simply to test the ground, allowing the
regime to regroup and plan accordingly. The regime is well familiar with
modern technology and know it's only a matter of time before the masses
become better informed allowing for better organisation against them, so
regrouping to them, is of vital importance, disrupt this move, and it
could disrupt the future of the SPDC?
The NLD has, since the 1990
election, considered itself the sole representative of democracy in Burma,
a status which actually weakens efforts at bringing down the
regime. This was not initially, the fault of the NLD, the
blame falls firmly on the shoulders of those western countries and
individuals who want to promote books, who saturated Suu Kyi with
unconditional publicity and honours, without any serious considerations as
to its affect within the Burmese political arena, whereas those honours
should have been directed at the people who have been making immense
sacrifices for decades, this would have pulled the people together as a
united country, working together, instead of what we have, a confused
people who spend their time attempting to out do each other, and
manipulating historical facts to suit their own objectives.
I, like many others, believe that the Parliamentary
Democracy Party can change the present day course of events if
given ethical support as a political party. This will not
redirect popularity away from ASSK, it will, show Burma, and the regime,
that together, as opposition parties sharing the same democratic
principles, but with varying agendas, both on their doorstep, can
force the regime into a corner where it will have to make
concessions. Naturally there is much more to it, but that is
for the PDP to contemplate, but today's PDP show every sign that
much thought and planning has already been in play for a number of
years.
The PDP, as its history shows, is fully committed to a
democratic system. It also understands the complications and
hazards which are inevitable if we want to pursue democracy, something the
NLD mistakenly ignored, but for Burma to start the long walk, it must have
a strong political infrastructure offering the people more than just one
solution to its problems. The regime has shown very clearly, how it can
effectively combat against a one party opposition.
Burma's
advancement toward democracy would progress much more with another policy
maker in the game. Competition has shown itself as a precise
means of advancing anything from, politics to consumer goods!
Its
time the people of Burma took control of its own destiny. It
must stop looking toward the west to fight its war; or depend on the
individual popularity of one human being. There are enough Burmese
exiles around the world to support what is necessary to win democracy if
only they really did care more about their country than just their own
image.
Contact the PDP and ask how you can help. emlmpdp@aol.com
web page :< www.pdp-burma.net>
Monty
A UK.org
member
UK.org.
1st.July 2004
Sir,
Josh has requested that we respond to your last comment, due to the fact that he has returned abroad.
UK,org, is an orgaination of former military personnel who offer their trained skills in life preservation to many areas around the globe. We take supplies into hostile areas. Many of the volunteers you may see on the tv attending disasters, both from natural causes and man made, are members of UK.org. We parachute at great risk, into flooded and mined areas to help people in distress. We are active in many parts of the world, including war zones. We are more than familiar with war I can assure you, our membership include everyone from the man who types our orders, to the best special force unit in world, to the master of a warship, and many of our members are from Burmese decent.
Our founder, after leaving special forces himself, as was Josh by the way, spent two decades involved with Burma, as many of us still are today. He worked for a long time with the late, U Tin Maung Win, chairman of the CRDB, who held positions with DAB, also run the New Era Journal, but of course, you would know that? Without nameing others, and there were many, he done much to help people locked inside Burma, Our knowledge is I can assure you, gained from on the ground experaince, we do not write books, as we do not look for recognition, others write books about us, to make a name for themselves.
It would appear obvious that you have only recently come across us, considering we have been involved for so long, we would guess that you have only just opened the curtain of the world a little wider? No disrespect.
So, to summerise, we can confirm that;
1. We are extemly familiar with all fields of warfare, as we are about those who fight for freedom in the jungles of Burma.
2. We are fully versed in Burma's history, as with the present.(Burma;s history began long before 8-8-88)
3. We are more than just 'dreamers' although dreaming can help calm the mind in times of great stress, more so if one has been without food or water for a considerable time, and perhaps suffering from a battle wound, or one is a captive under torture, both of which Josh has lived through, but still he risks danger by helping in flooded areas of India.
4. Perhaps you could tell the world of your own contribution to Burma. We at UK.org already know of you, but we are sure there are many from Burma who are not, that being the major problem. The population, mainly exiles, tend to live in pockets of small tunnel vision groups, who can only see their own interpretation of events. It is unfortunate that for many of the young, 8-8-88 was indeed the beginning, as was 1990 for others, anything before that, is either unrecorded or lost. For example, you should know who Bo Aung Din, is, and when and where, he was first as a soldier, followed by his political life?