UK.org.
A Guest Comment:
16 March 2004
BURMA'S FORGOTTEN MAJORITY
The following comments are the result of professional observations:
I Have read up on Burma through the years as part of a group study, and as a sociologist I am of course interested the social structures of a multi-national//cultural society such as with Burma, a part of which is to focus some of my attention as to who among all the people is actually best off at this point in time under present conditions, if indeed anyone can be categorised as such, and the reasons for it. For example; Nearly all the text I have read over the years, the meetings I have attended, the foundations, charities and governments I have confronted, all seem to be focused on 'the minorities' of Burma, in this case, all those who are not considered 'Burman'. This gives rise to the assumption, (which of course is common knowledge among the world's observers) that the SPDC is only part of the problem in Burma. As indicated further on into this comment, the lack of trust between many of the ethnic nations toward the Burman, is, and has been the crux of the matter for a long time, as too, among the ethnics themselves.
Every charitable organisation and aid agency involved with Burma, mostly mention only the various ethnics nations, who in turn are continually expressing their own problems and needs. Most of the ethnics as I see it are more able to promote their grievances to the world, than say the Burman population, who are physically trapped inside a closed country, whereas, the ethnics can at least experience a certain amount of freedom when it comes to accessing the world. A person only has to log into some of the many listserves and internet news outlets to witness the many voices of the ethnic people, and the ethnic activist can, if visiting abroad, return to his native land with comparative safety, which allows him to co-ordinate between their representatives overseas and those on the ground. 99.9% of foreign directed news comes out from the ethnic areas, which are not permanently occupied. Not so easy being a Burman, everything they do is forced underground and at great risk. Very few if any, western reporters have the courage to roam around Burman territories reporting the truth, because they know they will never see the light of day again, they will stand in Rangoon and preach as though they know all, but all they are doing creating a story. Some people insinuate that many Burman abroad are working with the SPDC, well that applies to many ethnics abroad also, but I do not hear cries of despair?
We are constantly reminded how Burmese troops are slaughtering the ethnics, so anyone from Burma who is not an ethnic, but 'Burman' is regarded as being part of those who kill ethnics, which of course is a terrible injustice and completely wrong!
I do not wish to be misunderstood or seen as choosing sides, but as a person who studies these matters, and in Burma's case, my observations do represent prominent examples of confused loyalties when it comes to sharing sympathies, aid and political encouragement.
As an outsider looking in, and, if I had no factual knowledge of Burma's situation, which many who write about it do not, I could be led to believe that it is only the ethnics who are suffering under a brutal regime, therefore may conclude that the Burman population,
(which is in fact 65-70% of the whole population of Burma and are under direct control of the regime, having no front-line defence as it were, protected by a disciplined armed faction, and have no where to run to) are in fact quite safe and content, and many foreigners do believe this, as I proved by my in depth discussions with them, I was also, rather taken back by the extent of naivety, or perhaps even complacency, displayed by these intellectuals on this particular subject. For this reason I am preparing a paper for publication allowing myself and my associates, to enlighten them with some hard facts about Burman suffering.
Depending how the Burma scenario is portrayed to the world, does of course, reflect on the type of assistance offered, and to whom it is directed, which effectively would play a major role in either the advancement or stalemate in the search for democracy.
An example of my thinking; 'Millions of tons of food aid, millions of US dollars given, but still people starve, and still people die in wars," I am of course talking Africa, and that is only one example. The same is happening in Burma, because, what funding is given, is not being distributed to those who could use it more effectively toward its cause. I have assessed my investigations as revealing to me, that due to naivety, complacency, and/or policy, (probably a little of all among the policy makers) the real issues behind Burma's dilemma are of no consequence, what is important to the world is what 'they' conceive as the big picture. (In reality, major powers will manipulate or ignore, internal strife of a smaller country to suit their own foreign policy) This is why countries like Burma, must take control of their own destiny.
Many I spoke to in later years, people who are familiar with the workings of major governments and their foreign policies, were of the opinion: 'What results from a minority, who seek autonomy, under the cloak of democracy, controlled by the majority, who are forcibly kept in obscurity, and trust is historically hard to come by from the minority"? Answer; prolonged stalemate.
Many observers believe that the ethnics inadvertently or deliberately, continued their fight through their mistrust of the Burman people or maybe just its leaders, in order to place themselves into a position where they can demand certain concessions written into any new constitution which could not be over ruled by a Burman majority if genuine elections took place? Some say that's good politics, others would say it is against all democratic principles, and is the cause for years of continued suffering?
We as foreigners read how ethnics are used as slave labour, porters for regime troops, and many other human rights abuses. Again we outsiders could very well believe that the Burman population are not suffering as much as the ethnics, when in fact they are the most vulnerable because it is they who are inside the lions den. The SPDC has over the years occupied areas once controlled by ethnic groups, placing the inhabitants in the same predicament. Many become refugees and survive along neighbouring borders, or move back further into their own territory still held by their army.
The refugee camps dotted along Burma's borders with its neighbours are full of ethnic inhabitants; the Burman refugees who may comprise of political activists however, have to accept the hospitality of those ethnics because it is their organisations who receive the aid. If studied more closely with greater concern, it could actually be assumed that it is the Burman people who are most violated by the regime and are ignored by foreign aid and/or other supportive agencies, but because all eyes are focused on the ethnic situation, the Burman people must look to the ethnics for protection and aid, whether it may be hiding inside their territories or inside their refugee camps. They are in truth, living and depending on people who historically mistrust them. It must be a nerve racking existence for these people. To be at risk from their own Burman masters, and on the other hand, must survive among those who do not trust them.
It is virtually impossible for those without ethnic support, to stand up against the regime in any form, because one Burman activist in a family condemns all of them, and as said earlier, they have no where to run.
The NLD it is believed, speaks for all, but operating under its present policy, is in fact powerless to act on behalf of anyone, least of all the Burman population. (Voiced support for the NLD cannot be regarded as practical support for a people, it's futile, and simply reflects the sound of cheering crowds who don't recognise other options and want to be seen as part of the crowd, a common phenomenon in dictatorships, where to be seen as opposed to a particular group, would inflict a traitorous status. It has been this attitude which has held Burma back):
The NCGUB, which is supposed to represent the NLD abroad, and is in receipt of many thousands of dollars to do so, is a nonentity in real terms as a representative of the Burma people, exactly who they represent other than themselves, is a mystery, so what chance do the Burman people have, and without them as the overall mass majority, there is no democracy dream!
DEMOCRACY WITHOUT A MAJORITY?
In conclusion therefore, it draws the picture of the Burman people depending solely on the actions of the ethnics to rid the country of tyranny when in fact it should be the other way around because it is they who are the majority and in theory could become resolute under the right leadership and strong enough with the right help, but due to the tight restriction in communication, movement, education, the people are kept oblivious to what goes on in their own country. Perhaps this is where the money should be targeted, because even if the ethnics win concessions, via their dealings with the SPDC, they would then have to convince the vast population of Burman, (or is the idea to enter through the back door, write a constitution while 70% of the population is still oblivious, and then tell them later)? This would be a ticket to a worse disaster than already experienced, yet another reason why the regime would never allow free elections, because, in doing so would stir up the hornets nest of 10's of millions of Burman who would then turn on both the SPDC and the ethnics for undermining their confidence. It will be a no win situation for all concerned.
If more support was given to the Burman political activists and political parties, it would allow those who have a better concept of cultural understanding of the regime and all the people, to make advancements. Would this not be more effective than waiting for the ethnics to capitulate only then to possibly lose out again in a democracy because majority voting would come from the Burman section? If for example the KNU were to find an agreement now, as some ethnics already have, with the SPDC, if then a flamboyant constitution was drawn up it may be contested by the electorate in new elections because it was conceived without their notification? It could lead to civil war but with a difference, because the ethnics would be fighting an elected government, which of course would draw massive support from democracies around the globe, who would no longer identify the ethnics as the trodden on, but would view them as insurgents trying to disrupt a democracy governed by a majority. So today's oppressed, would become tomorrow's enemy?
There is no magic recipe enabling the building of a mixed social structure.
If one group is set upon the idea that trust could never be obtained, and another group is intentional in their deviousness. HOWEVER! There are always allies to a common cause from both quarters, and Burma is no different. What it takes, is for those people to discuss common ground between them, and find ways of reaching a start line. Trust is not an essential requirement in discussion as caution is always under the table, but the only way to feel the ground, is to tread it!
Uk.org.
A guest comment.
UK.org.
Member Comment:
12th. March 2004
Federalism like all social and political alliances are like suits, they must be tailered to fit a particular body. Communities in Burma, other than a few individuals outside, have not shown signs of having studdied the most benificial system for their needs. It comes across as, 'lets place the 'NLD' in government then we can decide'? This attitude feeds the ambitions of the regime, and weakens the ethnic position!
I have attached an interesting article for & against federalism. ( article in referance to the USA )
Martin
UK.org.
The Case for Southern Secession (Again?)
by John P. George
Why should Southerners (USA) believe that secession should be any more feasible now than in 1861? After all, didn't the failed War for Southern Independence end the question of secession forever? In addition, what possible benefits could there be from forming a new Southern confederacy? These are probably the most frequently asked questions of League of the South members.
Secession today appears to be a serious but popularly accepted option everywhere except here in the United States. Fifteen years ago, someone suggesting that Russia would voluntarily allow the three Baltic states their independence after their re-annexation, at the point of a bayonet in the I 940s, would have had been considered a hopeless romantic and/or lunatic. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (and possibly Canada) and a rebirth of Scottish nationalism, Southerners too are increasingly wondering whether or not greater autonomy for the South is possible.
Lincoln and the War notwithstanding, self-determination and independence remain just as much a legitimate aspiration today for Southerners as in 1861. It is impossible to read the Declaration of Independence and not believe in the right of self-determination without being hypocritical. While the purpose of this paper is not discussed in great detail the Constitutional questions concerning secession, let it suffice to be said that many constitutional experts before the War believed strongly in the Constitutional right of secession. This was based on the very origin of the federal government itself (states, in effect, had to secede' from the old Articles of Confederation in order to join the Union). In addition, the tenth amendment states specifically that since the 'power' of secession is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution, that right is guaranteed to the states ('reserved to the states respectively'). Lincoln, of course, was opposed to the question of secession going to the Taney Supreme Court because he knew lie would not prevail. What Lincoln was unable to accomplish by Constitutional means, lie was quite willing to do by forcing the South to stop Union supplies from reaching Ft. Sumter thus precipitating the War.
Secession and independence remains the only an answer for the South today. Aside from the fact that the old ordinances of secession were perfectly legal and repealed only at the point of a bayonet after the War, thus giving the South a legitimate reason for returning to the status quo antebellum, the Federal government (and the North in general) has again and again demonstrated a continual arrogant abuse of power against the South. From the First Reconstruction (1865-1877) to the Second Reconstruction (1957 [when Federal troops were sent back into the South]) to the present, the Federal government has shown a habitual disregard for state rights by regarding the states as the servants of the central government rather than the reverse.
Complete Southern autonomy and the establishment of a true confederate system is the only solution for the South that can remove the possibility of new encroachments against state rights by the Federal government. Devolution of central power back to the local and state level will remove an unneeded and unwarranted level of bureaucracy and provide the greatest amount of freedom and empowerment to the people.
Southern independence will allow us to work out our own problems by ourselves and not by Federal force. From slavery to segregation to under 21 drinking, the Federal government has been unwilling to let us work things out among ourselves if it has not been the proper solution at the proper speed deemed appropriate by our Federal 'Big Brother'. in the case of secession we were told, 'We don't care what you want, you will remain in the Union whether you want to or not.' In the ease of desegregation it was, 'If you don't move fast enough with what we consider "all deliberate speed" in our social engineering, we will send Federal troops, to force you with violence if necessary to do as we say to do.' ( In Burma's case, under federal rule, it will be continuation of SPDC policy but in a federal system, and will stand as constitutional, which would give the regime a legitimacy its craves for. It will have a legal right to kill!))
Southern independence will allow Southern culture and heritage to flourish. The South will no longer have to struggle constantly to be permitted to celebrate its own holidays and traditions. Most importantly, the statement that the South is a history without a nation will no longer be true; we will have our national history without Yankee revisionism. We will be able emphasize again our agrarian and small town values and stop the process of every Southern city becoming an architectural carbon copy of Northern urban sprawl, strip malls and urban congestion.
Southern independence will check the inane drift toward world government through the United Nations. The same people who love a strong federal government think nothing about chipping away at our national sovereignty and freedom. Not surprisingly, our scalawag President Clinton was opposed to U.S. support for Chechnya since the U.S. had opposed secession. Imperialistic nations such as Russia, our own Federal government, and China can be counted on not to support secession and independence for the people of Kosovo and Tibet.
Southern independence is based on the belief that there are basic and distinct differences in culture, religion, political ideology, and ethnicity that form a nation distinct from the North. Ethnically the white population of the South has been predominantly from Great Britain and Ireland and northern Europe and Protestant Christian in religion. Politically the South has long been more conservative than the North or West, and regardless of ethnic background (e.g., black, Cajun, or Cherokee) all Southerners share a common history and certain similarities in cuisine, language, and music. To find out the differences between the North and the South, just tell a Southerner there aren't any!
Southern independence and nationalism will check the growth of liberal internationalism, social engineering and radical egalitarianism. While Marxism is dead or dying throughout the old communist block nations, it remains an insidious virus within Western liberalism which has distorted liberalism from its previous lofty aims of individual freedom. It is this Marxist tainted liberalism which promotes an androgynous, homogenized, and centralized society under the guise of 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism.' Southern nationalism is based on the belief that cultural heritage and traditions can best be maintained through ethnic autonomy. Robert Frost and his ilk notwithstanding, good fences do make good neighbours. Radical egalitarians not only want to tear down their neighbours' fences; they also believe that 'What's mine is mine and What's yours is also mine.' Thus in their striving towards equality of condition, racial preferences become "affirmative action" and any scientific research into inherent racial or gender differences becomes taboo. SAT score requirements for minorities in colleges and physical requirements for women in the armed forces are lowered in order to meet radical egalitarian dogma. Instead our Southern heritage celebrates true diversity (as in complementary differences between men and women) and true multiculturalism (where differences are recognized yet evaluated accordingly instead of pretending that all cultures are equal).
Even without an organized political party to promulgate Southern nationalism, public opinion polls have indicated that approximately ten percent of the South's population would support Southern independence if could be obtained without violence. This means that a Southern nationalist party organizing for elections today would start out with a larger base of support than the Parti Quebecois did when it came into existence when less than five percent of the Quebecois supported independence for Quebec. Such a political party in the South could run candidates for local election and support national candidates it felt best represented the interests of the party.
And even a single state seceding and gaining independence would be more economically viable and politically feasible than some of the national states that have come into existence over the past fifty years. Even allowing for some of the financial technicalities (e.g., assumption of a per capita portion of the national debt). Imagine how wonderful it would be to wake up one morning in a state free of the dictates of Washington, master in its own house, and master of its own destiny!
As the single star of a new 'Bonnie Blue Flag' grows to include others, a true confederacy could be created, i.e., one with a truly weak central government that is created solely to be the servant of states (and not vice versa). Such a central government would attend almost exclusively to foreign affairs, a common currency, postal system, and defense. The new constitution would take seriously Patrick Henry's admonitions against the ratification of the old Constitution.
A bumper sticker appeared several years ago which stated, 'If independence sounds good in Lithuania, it'll play great in Dixie.' If independence can be obtained from the Soviet Union without bloodshed by three small Baltic states, surely the same can be done by the South. Someday we will be able to repeat in fact the lines from Timrod's 'Ethnogenesis' written in 1861 upon the formation of the first Confederacy:
Hath not the morning dawned with added light?
And shall not evening call another star
Out of the infinite regions of the night,
To mark this day in heaven? At last we are
A nation among nations; and the world
Shall soon behold in many a distant port
Another flag unfurled.
John P. George holds a B.A. degree in sociology and philosophy from the University of Georgia, an M.A. degree in historical sociology from the University of New Brunswick in Canada, and a Ph.D. from Mississippi State University. In addition, he has completed graduate work at the University of Munich in Germany. He presently teaches at John Hancock Academy in Sparta, Georgia, and is a member of the League of the South.
UK.org
Member Comment:
11 March 2004
FEDERALISM BEFORE INTERGRATION?
I read with interest about suggestions aimed in the direction of 'federalism' as a possible solution to Burma's dilemmas. At this point in time the ethnic nations do not appear to be in line with each others objectives, at least these are the signs? Would not a 'confederation' of nation states be better considered first? Given the past military capabilities of the ethnic nations, had a confederate alliance been achieved between all the ethnic people over a common goal, the military regime may not have prolonged its existence as it has done, and full integration could have been in place allowing more potential toward setting up a federal system, under a constitution?
If neighbours cannot honour agreements under a confederate alliance to start with, how could they possibly draw up a federal constitution to suit all? Counties like North America 1776-1787, Swiss 1291-1847, and of course today's European Union, all held together by an alliance and not by rule, before moving on. Eventually some say, Europe will be under federalism, but until we settle our differences and ease back on, 'what we have, we have no wish to share' attitude, it's a long way off? These alliances have their problems, more so when cultural differences clash, and a nation states heritage is regarded by its people as being under threat, this in turn would weaken the confederation against dictatorships, which perhaps could influence those with a grievance? It takes a strong and determined mind to stick together simply under the banner of honour and common logic, which must surely come before any committal under a constitution? If Britain for example chose to reject some of Europe's 'suggestions' out of hand, we could simply pull out of the alliance all together. But this would of course damage the UK's ability to expand, so, by creating a 'need' to belong, helps build a better understanding between members with a 'we all need each other' mentality! This in turn prepares the way for future working relationships where, once complete integration of member's states is in harmony, and more importantly, all the people fully understand what is happening, the next step could be taken?
Democratic Theory
Federalism raises several challenges to democratic theory, especially as developed for unitary states. Federal arrangements are often more complex, thereby challenging standards of transparency and accountability. The restricted political agendas of each center of authority also require defense (Dahl 1983; Braybrooke 1983).
The power that sub-units wield in federations often restricts or violates majority rule, in ways that merit careful scrutiny. Federal political orders typically influence individuals' political influence by skewing their voting weight in favor of citizens of small sub-units, or by granting sub-unit representatives veto rights on central decisions. Minorities thus exercise control in apparent violation of principles of political equality and one-person-one-vote -- more so when sub-units are of different size.
These features raises fundamental normative questions concerning why sub-units should matter for the allocation of political power among individuals who live in different sub-units.
Federations are often thought to be 'sui generis' , one-of-a-kind deviations from the ideal-type unitary sovereign state familiar from the Westphalian world order. Indeed, every federation may well be federal in its very own way, and not easy to summarize and assess as an ideal-type political order. Yet the phenomenon of non-unitary sovereignty is not new, and federal accommodation of differences may well be better than the alternatives. When and why this is so has long been the subject of philosophical, theoretical and normative analysis and reflection. Such arguments may also contribute to the overarching loyalty required among citizens of stable, legitimate federations, who must understand themselves as members of two commonwealths, their own as a state, and the country! For example; I am English but stand side by side to the Welsh, Scottish and N, Irish, as British!
Of course there are aurguments for and against, but all must be veiwed with deep concern for what is good for all!
Martin;
Uk.org member.
UK.org.
Member Comment:
6th. March 2004
I have been studying the successes and failures of certain groups within the pro-democracy movement of Burma. Its quite amazing really, the most known, that of the NLD & the NCGUB, both with substantial amounts of funding from different organisations have in fact achieved nothing positive since their formations. On the other hand, the 'PDP' who receives nothing. has impacted the political scene with a massive contribution which has quite categorically reshuffled the pack of cards, and forced players to reconsider their game plan. If the 'PDP' can achieve what it has up till now, all for the good of Burma, just imagine what it could do with the same funding of say, the NCGUB ?
Unless there is an ulterior motive, outside of democracy for Burma, surely those who fund the NCGUB for example, must expect something in return? Just a thought.
Steve
Uk.org member.
UK.org.
Collective Comment:
06 March 2004
We are once again expected to bestow applause on the UN for allowing business as usual for their man Razali Ismail. who goes back to Burma just to confirm his business dealings and make sure the price is right, and 'Oh' while your there, conjure up some story relating to the political situation just to keep the media happy? Every time that man goes to Rangoon, nothing he says, is ever collaborated by the regime leaders in public, any statement from ASSK can never be confirmed, and most of what he 'assumes' never happens, except of course his profit margin increases as any watchdog organisation will tell! Between them, the regime and Razali Ismail, will keep the tyranny afloat for another lengthy period, after all if the world wants hope, simply sanction it with a UN stamp and people will sit back and wait for the miracle, I don't think so some how?
The truth, as with politics and business everywhere, is, all the serious stuff is discussed well away from the public glare, with only the most trusted and loyal held in confidence, Burma politics is no different, and is one of the reasons the SPDC keep ASSK isolated, not only does it prevent core discussion between the 'NLD', it also ridicules the party in that it is seen as unable to function without its public relations mascot, (no disrespect, simply political realities) If an army is incapable of operating just because it lost its general, then the army was ineffective in the first instant, other than perhaps an image of strength on the screen of hope, only to fall short of expectations when the fighting begins?
When Europe's iron curtain, separating east from west, was torn down, most people couldn't believe it, because no pre-warning was ever indicated, in fact preparation for it was in place long before it happened. One of those implicated in its planned destruction is sitting in on this meeting, and wishes to convey his sincerity toward the people of Burma who are trapped behind an iron curtain of tyranny as he was. He insists that, as with the former USSR, the fight for freedom has to come from within! It does not matter what the outside world offer, it is at the end of the day, only superficial. If for example the world offered the tools, it would still be the people who have to use them, and they must have the will to carry out the work no matter what the sacrifice. Without the people's will to want freedom, the USSR would still be intact, and our guest would probably be dead! Certainly, pressures from outside, have their uses, but are ultimately designed to encourage and entice those trapped to help themselves. Each application sends out a different signal, and these signals must be deciphered by the people inside who are fighting for their freedom. (Otherwise the effort of applying 'political pressure' and/or 'supplying' aid' in some way, no matter how abstract it appears,' is wasted.)
As with any good field commander, he/she must be able to read the signs on the battlefield where the most minute of information could decide between life or death. Only the most acute of minds are capable of placing each piece of the puzzle in rough location to its home ready for the key stone to be placed in position, when this is done all the previous strategically placed pieces will slide into their allocated slots, making up the final picture which confused so many others right up to the picture being identified, just like the fall of the berlin wall, no one saw it coming, it just happened, but it was planned all the same!
Up until now, it would appear to the untrained and ill informed mind, as though all the individual pieces of Burma's puzzle are still roaming in the wilderness, when in fact the results of intense planning and organising is clear for all to see, those who want to see it anyway, because they're are those who are blinded with dreams of grandeur, and others who are transfixed with idolism, and they all fail to see reality.
We ask the people of Burma to cast their minds back just a few short years, lets us say December, 1997, and then suggest they write down all the political achievements made by the 'NLD,' and the 'NCGUB' in favour of democracy since the 1990 election up to that period. What we will witness, are blank pages!
After the denial of office the 'NLD' fell into a political coma because it had no planned strategy to cope with such a situation, (which forces the mind to only guess how it proposed, and proposes, to run a country) The regime was only too aware of this, and monopolise on it by placing hurdle after hurdle in front of any move the 'NLD' attempted. Stalemate, and it lasted for years. Not because there was no way out for the 'NLD,' (as every soldier knows, there is always a 3rd way out, you just have to know where to look) but because its leadership was not qualified or competent enough to equal the cunning and manipulative skills of the SPDC, either that, or they were in collusion with them? Then, a few years ago, the rhythm of politics changed. Out spoken views were aired, truths were told, individuals and pro-democracy groups alike, were confronted, foreign opinions faltered and led to changes in the wording of their statements. Although the general consensus toward the 'NLD''s election victory was the same, [after all it had to remain so, in order to support democracy, so its accepted purely in that context.) the acknowledgement of its failings were too, becoming disturbingly obvious!
If the people of Burma really want the freedom which a democracy offers, then they have to recognise the signals, they must learn to read the signs, and act on the evidence they see! Just how many times must the people watch the same horse lose, but still insist on gambling their stakes for it to win?
Every time a mother loses a son, a daughter losing her father, a family, their home, the more incensed people become against the absurdity of their supposed leaders who are seen to be totally ignoring their plight, but live in comfort themselves. (ASSK is not in prison but many of the NLD members are?) These acts of blindness ring true, unfortunately with certain 'NLD' leaders, along with the totally inadequate leadership of the 'NCGUB.' All these doubtful attributes although still present, would still be operating without criticism today if it were not for the re-emergence of the 'PDP' (Parliamentary Democracy Party) with its new and charismatic leader, 'Bo Aung Din,' where many of our regular communiqué's with the Burmese people place him as Burma's secret weapon against tyranny, the SPDC is certainly very much aware of his presence!
As it is today, and for many years past, this mans loyalty was to all peoples of Burma and was as he is today, dedicated to democracy. He stood firmly behind the 'NLD' as did others, but this man held attributes and a past which all the others did not, and some envy.…
Although many may have recognised the flaws in the 'NLD' and the 'NCGUB,' only this man had the pedigree and of course the courage, to break away from the crowd, and change the course of history which was dragging his country into complete and utter oblivion. It was his guidance and influence, which brought out into the open genuinely concerned Burmese, who now speak freely about their concerns, who otherwise, for years, kept quite? Unlike some newly formed groups who only care about their own future, and see themselves as masters, and who will by their formation only increase the gap of despair by creating more opinions. The 'PDP,' is a bona-fida political party with a history and a laid down political agenda to benefit the 'whole' of Burma! Our Intel section informs us that 'Bo Aung Din' has held numerous secret meetings with many foreign dignitaries, which of course he politely and diplomatically brushes off as speculation, but observers can see very clearly the change in attitude both from the people of Burma, and certain foreign governments which has altered the direction of Burma's political path compared to the many years of stagnation since the 1990 elections. Coincidence or creation? The signs are there for all to see, but many are still blind to reality because their ego's are stronger than their dedication to free their country?
The reputed statement made by ASSK this week, mentions her comments towards 4 demands, which fall in line with her trait, mentions nothing about freedom for 'all' offices including other political party's to be able to operate without hindrance, only that the 'NLD' offices be allowed to function. Once again we witness the one sided arrogance of a group of people who consider themselves as heirs to a throne which they have failed miserably to honour, and they have the audacity to speak of democracy?
There is only one true reason the 'NLD' hold back from attending the proposed convention, and that is the same reason the 'NCGUB' is concerned about its planned convention where all are reputed to have been invited, as opposed to the norm, where only loyal supporters attend, and that is because both have the same fear of being rejected by the people of Burma, which would result from calling a 'multiparty' conference in the case of the 'NLD' as opposed to a 'tri-partied' conference, where opposition cannot pose a threat? Eventually, both groups will have to stand before the people and explain their failures, and both groups have avoided such a confrontation! Now sit back and consider what has transpired since the 'PDP' emerged?
UK.org.