UK.org.

Member Comment.

16 May 2003

Facing The Real World.

It is easy to criticize, or to praise past and present events, and then use
them as examples of success or failure. It's also very easy to miss-place
blame for failure, or, lay praise for success onto undeserving groups or
individuals.  This philosophy is common in politics, and indeed in the every
day life of us all.  Life has taught me to study both words and actions,
because in politics as in life, they rarely match.   Teachers and the
military have judged me, as average in intelligence and, in touch with
reality, and recognises common sense.  Not much of an epitaph to leave
behind, some may say, but I accept that as a compliment.  Some people
however, found it amusing to baffle me with words by making up a sentence
using words that would only be taught in high education.  They then look down
at me sniggering because they think I do not understand the context of their
sentence, which is their way of humiliating me. This normally results from my
being acknowledged as more informed on a particular subject, and have
therefore placed someone who considers him/her self above myself, in an
embarrassing position, and in order to up stage me, finds it necessary to
'put me in my place'.  Again, politics runs along these lines.  In days past,
British military officers only, received the 'Military Cross' for valour;
lower ranks were awarded the 'Military Medal' for the same act.  This was a
clear-cut example of 'them and us'. I was awarded the latter some years ago,
and each time I attended a military reunion I was instantly recognised as a
'lower rank; and left out of conversation between MC awards. However, today
is very different, now all ranks receive the MC.  Similarly, officers were
chosen from certain sections of society, but today you will find officers
from all walks of life.  That was part of the old British storybook world.
Today at last, we have moved into the real world, where every one is
considered part of the same team.  This is the reality Burma has to
acknowledge.  All suffering Burmese people, no matter what section of society
they consider themselves to be part of, should be batting on the same side;
there should not be 'them and us', something which is continuingly exposing
itself to the world.
I am constantly reading accounts of where the blame lay in regards to Burma's
dilemma, and repeated references made to all number of historical events,
with suggestions that Burma should learn from them.
Let us move into the real world, just for a moment.  Every day for years, I
have been involved in some way with Burma, and every day I fail to see any
advancement other than stalemate.  I witnessed a 'party piece' election in
1990, the result of a public relations exercise by the regime, A little known
political party was elected using 'Aung San' as its rallying flag.  I place
no disrespect, but that is all they had.  A party who, if placed in power,
would have required years of learning before they grasped the fundamentals of
government, in which time the country would have fallen even deeper into
decline, or at the very least, controlled by outside influences!
It was a show put on by the regime for the world to watch, but it diverted
away from their planned agenda.

Even so, what the campaigning parties of the time should have done, was to
discuss with the regime, in order to test their contribution, that instead of
elections, allow them an interim period where the democratic elements can
find their feet, and learn the art of government, and give time for proper
party campaigning, then with the world as witness, the regime could have
called an election.  During that interim period both democratic and regime
leaders, hypothetically, 'could' have devised a way and means of solving
Burma's dilemma, this way, the regime would have retained its somewhat
callous dignity and authority as the chair, therefore would not have felt
threatened, which in turn may have produced more relaxed and productive
discussions.  Instead the democracy party, 'NLD' decided against all logic
and commonsense, by blatantly shoving the image of 'Aung San' into the faces
of the regime, in the hope to encourage the people to rise up.  That was
completely foolhardy and irresponsible, and down right incompetent.  You do
'not' insult and degrade your foe while he holds you in chains!

Until such time as the people are given the right to choose their leaders by
election, brought about by realising the power 'they' hold as a mass, those
few who hold the guns will rule.  The simple statement I am making, and the
above, is my way of revealing to the people that by working together, knowing
how your opponent operates, and as much as you may detest it, understand the
calibre of its leaders, learn 'his' logic, no matter how out of place with
your thinking it may be.  Calculate how long he can sustain his authority
before crumbling; even if it means dying of old age.  Determine your own
actions on those findings, determine your own limits and learn what is
required, then, lay down procedure, and commit!

 The Burmese people have had forty plus years of learning how to 'live' under
tyranny, whereas, it 'should' have been forty plus years to learn how to
'break out' of tyranny!  That is the only lesson on history required, in
order to face the reality of the situation faced today. Years have been
wasted, years where all manner of knowledge could have been attained.
Instead of looking back with regret, look forward, but this time 'plan'.

The only way to succeed in overthrowing a military controlled regime is for a
revolt inside the military, or an opposing army, unless of course, if America
sent in the troops, but failing that, it's utterly pointless to attempt
passive argument without some form of power credibility.   Ne Win was able to
take power because there were no credible opposition, and he did not want to
be controlled by a group of bureaucrats, he wanted total control.  He did not
do it for the good of the country.  His contemporise live by the same decree
and in turn have sown the seed of rule deep into the souls of their heirs.
The only way left to take the bone from the wolf, is to have the means to
shoot it, or to offer credible compromise.  If both elements are absent, then
the road will continue to be long and arduous.

Unless there are ways and means, and the incentive, to create an army within
the civilian population of Burma, or to create a revolt from within the
present military then all other efforts are in vain.  Because like the wolf
it will not surrender to passive argument, unless there is some gain, why
should it?

People are miss-guided by believing the UN has some kind of healing power.
The UN is nothing more than a passive brake for slowing things down while a
situation is looked at, and in many cases are too late, and that is only the
theory, in truth it has no powers of persuasion what so ever, it is for this
reason it was left out of the Iraq conflict.  In just about every location
the UN operates in, it is after the event. The UN are not peace brokers or
for that matter, peacekeepers, as conflict still rages in their presence
where opposing groups have actually killed each other under the very noses of
the UN   They are representatives of its members; therefore act as eyes and
ears on behalf of those members, nothing more!

Any one of us can only achieve where we are willing to lay down sacrifices,
whether in business or war!  It could be in the form of a risky financial
investment, dis-comfort, loss of privileges, prestige, family ties, honour,
ego, pride, friends, or indeed, the ultimate, our life!  If we are not
willing to place any of the ideals we hold most dear as collateral, then
success will evade us, but even then, it must be a carefully calculated
effort, not executed in haste.

No amount of talk will persuade the wild dog to give up its bone, the most
that can be done is to hide from its savagery, and, until the opposition is
in possession of all the right tools, and is ready to make sacrifices in
order to retrieve the bone, then it is precisely that sense, of an impossible
cause which will continue to hold down the Burmese people.

Today's reality must be confronted!  Sentiment has no place in conflict. It
is a very well known fact from within the higher echelons of the 'PDP' that a
number of consortiums and agencies from around the world, are operating
within, both the commercial and political arena's, taking advantage of
Burma's political situation.   Being realists, the 'PDP' understand the ways
of the world.  They are only too aware, that sentiment alone is not the way
to win wars.  For the past five or so years, the 'PDP'has gathered an immense
catalogue of information.  It has been a long and arduous task, but like any
offensive, the commander must have as much intelligence as possible on the
enemy and its allies, then the time for putting all the learning and training
into practise will arrive.

The much publicized 'NLD' with its political naiveties, are too engrossed in
its own self image, to which it is campaigning, to acknowledge these
realities, therefore, are not recognised as a viable solution to Burma's
political future, simple because the commercial and political sectors of the
world, which Burma will depend, will look for co-operation from any future
ruling party, and will find it impossible to negotiate with a party like the
'NLD' because of these naiveties.  The only reason the 'NLD' is much debated,
is the result of a farcical election, which had no real substance, but was
enough to create a tool on which the world promoted.  Until a party with
reality in its grasp comes forward, Burma's present, and, for the foreseeable
future, dealings will be done with the SPDC, where sentiment is not an issue!

Fantasy and images of grandeur should be left to the imagination of children,
where no one gets hurt.  The real world is very different, and the 'NLD' has
wasted what could have been, many years of learning, because they believed
solely on superficial image building and not political realities.

The 'PDP' supported and watched the 'NLD' for over a decade in which to make
a stand, it has failed miserably, because its leadership are not realists but
live in the realms of fantasy and self prestige of which it considers itself
to have earned.  More importantly, the leadership of the 'NLD' appear to have
no understanding of the influences, which dictate the politics of the world!
This has been apparent during the period of Suu Kyi's house arrest where
preparation for motivating the people, and of learning, together with, the
collective political input of the time, was non-existent, and left to the
many activists who only represented themselves and their own particular
grievances.  Again during the past year, extreme effort has been portrait by
the 'NLD' toward a campaign, not for all party talks but concentrating more
on the mis- placed status of its leadership and satellites.   Much of the
world's media carry the burden of blame for the status quo. It helped to
create false hope by falling on what it regarded as 'character building' of
one unfortunate person, of which Suu kyi became the chosen figure.  Events
and birthright placed her firmly in the target area for image building, which
led, what I believe to be her own and the NLD's demise today, and no amount
of publicity will cover up the fact once the real political battle begins.
Much blame has been hurled against the regime for not talking, but reality
must also strike the 'NLD' because delay has been caused due to its inability
to play the game at the level required.  It's a little like the student
dictating to the teacher.

No one can be sure of any guidance the lady may have been offered from the
visitors she has received over the years, or indeed, if she was deliberately
mis-guided, for other more devious reasons?
Personally, I have great respect and a certain amount of sympathy for the
lady, because I believe she was put into place for the benefit of 'forces
unknown' of which, she became aware of, and possibly rejected, only to find
herself trapped by her own ego set in a ring of fire, where her only way out,
is the path created for her.  I also believe, as do many others, had the
'NLD' moved into exile as an elected government soon after the elections, a
move that would have offered numerous options for them, and could very well
have placed them in power today, or at least a democratic government.  The
lady's presence in Rangoon did not stop the regime from continuing its
dastardly work, nor did it improve human rights for the people, it certainly
did not act as a learning period for political sciences, required to take on
the SPDC!   So what has been gained, and for that matter, who gained, apart
from the SPDC?

The more, public relations are deemed necessary, the more chance there are of
hidden elements, which require diversions.
However, had the party moved into exile, and utilised all the support and
help it could have received from the many Burmese who have spent years
studying the science and the intricacies of politics, they would not be
trapped in the swamp as they are today.  We ask again, was the decision to
reject exile taken by the 'NLD', or was it 'suggested' by forces unknown, and
if the latter, why?

It is very simple to confuse an egotistic and un-informed person with
fantasy, while you actually manipulate their emotions.  It does not matter
how intelligent one is, we are all na๏ve in areas we are not familiar with,
and the manipulator simply finds his human tool, which is considered
'workable', and proceeds to control them.  Even if that 'tool' becomes
enlightened, it would be too late or too disastrous to change course.
Those who stand to gain from our ego and ignorance can easily dupe us; police
and military covert intelligence sections use this technique all the time.
The most secret elements of any government or military, is made to look so
ridiculously stupid to the un-informed mind, that any person revealing
information on such issues, are themselves made to look ridiculous.

In order to survive in a world of treachery and trickery, which is exactly
what politics is all about, every move or suggestion must be dissected into
many parts and questions to even the most bizarre revelations must be
answered before accepting it.
It is this world of reality to which Burma must move if it wants to compete
with the SPDC, and, keep up with the rest of the world.  There is no place in
the real world, for faint-hearted or fantasy seeking individuals.  If a
political party is found to be out of the playing in the bigger picture, it
will either be ignored, or manipulated to the advantage of the big players.
We have a saying, "if you cant take a joke, then you should not have joined",
and what that really means is; if you are not able to compete at the same
level as your competitors, then it is safer for you to stand aside. Forty
plus years have passed.  Many Burmese have studied political science and
other academic necessities required to move onto the playing field, surely
they are not all working for the SPDC?

I have just spent a period of time with the upper echelons of the 'PDP' and
was greatly impressed with the calculated approach they make toward any of
their actions.  These people are aware of the pitfalls and booby traps in
politics, unlike many outside of the 'PDP' that I have met or listened to
over the years.  They are competent enough to consider that there could, very
well be secret dealings taking place between Suu Kyi and 'unknown elements.
Perhaps the groundwork for future events is being planned out.  If, in the
event of any outside influence bringing down the regime, (remote) any plan to
place the 'NLD' in government without further elections, would be met with
controversy after such a long period since the last elections, and that will
of course, depend on, which election mandate we are looking at?  Indeed
should the elections of 1990 have taken place when in fact a government was
already elected into office before being ousted by Ne Win?  In which case why
was U Nu's party not simply reinstated?  At least the country would have had
term-experienced politicians.  If reasons of mandate becoming invalid are
used, then it answers the question many are asking once the regime is finally
removed, there must be new elections, because you cannot have one rule for
the NLD and contradicting rules for everyone else, that may be politics, but
it is not democratic!

Steward,

 UK.org member;

UK.org
Member comment.
02 May 2003

Burma, the key to world transformation?
I have recently returned from SEA and kind of, whittled my way through areas
of Burma with PDP members as my host and guide, but my comment today must
surely reflect on the comment I just read, in response to a letter from a '
Burma Academic group', which I also read of course.   I have been with UK.org
four & half years, and the org, response made me realise the depth of feeling
for world peace and harmony this group expels, and its realistic approach to
home truths.  I am sure our founder dictated the letter although perhaps Mr.
Thomas edited the end product, because I know for a fact, that any letter
regarding Burma would have needed at least a hundred pages.  No other person
inside UK.org could have produced the facts about the world in such few
words. I have only met our founder on three occasions the first being, when
he welcomed others and myself to the org.  In the course of an afternoon he
lifted us from floor level to the ceiling with his accounts of Burma, and his
almost sacred belief, that Burma is the answer to the worlds miserable and
deteriorating attitudes.  I know also, that he has associated with many of
the pro-democracy activists over 20 years, much of it in secret, and having
read some of archive reports he made during that time, hinted strongly, that
if the search went on long enough the right person to lead Burma into a new
time would appear.  There is a document, which only very senior members have
at their disposal, and that is a complete analysis of his idea of a natural
leader.  We are familiar with one major statement from that document which
reads:

"Many people shy away from shadows as they are believed to hide demons, but
shadows are commanded by the sun, which means the heavens are protecting
someone from view until the time is right to light up the world".

We all know that many leaders are simply nothing more than extroverts and
showmen who enjoy the limelight. Most of them are not leaders.  The statement
in the
 'Burma Academic groups' letter outlining Bo Aung Din and his history fits an
uncanny remembrance to our founder's pointers, which go back some years,
again a note was made:

" A dedicated follower who never stops listening, watching and thinking,
saying little.   Is he ambitious or is he loyal?  He is the only person I
have encountered over the years whose name cannot be found among those who
wander" He is mentioned by others in passing, but on the few testing
occasions, I mentioned his name, eyebrows were raised, not, I may add in
surprise, but in acknowledgement of my observation".  He can be depended on
to the end, it was said to me.  " I realised then, when the heavens light up
the shadow 'this man will appear'!

Although no name is written identifying this shadowy figure, it does seem to
uncanny not to associate this statement written by our founder, with the
present PDP chairman, Bo Aung Din.  I do not expect our founder to ever
reveal the name of the time, but the org's intense support does perhaps lead
in that direction?

Andrew.      A UK.org member.