UK.org
Member comment.

22 September 2003

FIND A FORWARD GEAR!
After reading all the media support of the NLD, or I should say ASSK, I am still amazed at the continuous lack of incentive, to build on that support.  Many millions of dollars have been laid at their doorstep over the years, in one form or another, but not one cent appears to have been spent on creating a realistic political platform in which to take on the SPDC.  Where has all this money gone?

The watching world can only do so much for Burma, but still the same record is playing the same tune over and over again.  The regime knew what it was doing, when it again restricted ASSK's movements, and the proof is there for all to see.  The same voices are again revealing to the world, their lack of momentum, and the absence of a workable plan.  Of course call for the release of all political prisoners, it's the right thing to do, but to suggest the regime to throw in one of its bargaining chips is not being realistic, other than showing them, that its main official opposition has nothing to bargain with. The release of prisoners is in these circumstances, as throughout the world, is a 'result' of a solution found, and deals struck, or won, and are not a starting point for any regime!  The voices can shout as loud as they like via the various outlets open to them, but it falls on deaf ears.  All these voices are achieving is their own portrayal of an empty arsenal.  If a party cannot function without its flag, or in Burma's case, its idolism of a single person, then what good is it to a country?  The war does not stop when a general is taken prisoner, (only the war plans change in case he reveals his secrets under interrogation,) the next in line, who in turn has been trained in all aspects of his trade, takes over.  This is not the case with the NLD, and the people are finally showing their concern, again, and all the 'road maps' in the world cannot reach fruition without a party with the ability to carry it through, and even then it has to have hidden reserves to strenthgen their case, this being the reason the PDP opened up its own agenda, and is proving to be a more realistic option.  No amount of encouragement to stay in support of the NLD, brought about by criticism or envy, will change that fact.  Anyone who follows lost causes are themselves doomed to failure. The PDP acknowledges it will be the people of Burma, who defeat the regime, not the superficial written word or the application of sanctions which has never been proven to defeat any regime that is willing to allow its population to starve in order to preserve its own existence.

World bodies, we can assure everyone, is well aware of the PDP, but ethics, ( and in politics ethics is just another name for a licensed hypocrite) only allows for 'open' promotion or support, of an elected section, of any suppressed society, so in Burma's case even though world bodies may consider the NLD as a lost cause, it will continue to defend human rights, and issue statements in favour of the democratically elected party, and will wait for the people of Burma, to ultimately decide when the curtain finally comes down on the NLD, and a new cast of characters with a new show, is formed. 
It's the people who have been let down, by a few individuals who do not hold the qualifications of leadership, the only NLD members who deserve praise are those courageous individuals who, even under threat of prison or death, defy the regime on their home ground.  They receive no comforts other than the friendships and comradeship which can only derive from living in fear with each other. I SALUTE YOU ALL.  

Jerry
UK.org member.

Uk.org
Member comment

12 September 2003

WATCH THIS SPACE.

I recall some years back, when our little click of 'Burma blood' as we call ourselves, watched with great interest, the elections which gave the NLD the vote.   At the time we were all serving in numerous posts throughout the armed forces, including those from the States & Canada.  Today we are all civilians, and disappointingly, we are all still watching the same space, with no movement having been seen by us, in fact our information, shows the military regime as stronger than ever.

If the Burmese people are waiting for some miracle, such as the regime to put up their hands and stand down without a fight, then it would seem that all bets are fraudulent, because winners never throw in the towel, unless of course, it's to their advantage, like perhaps a bribe?  In this case though, the bribe could not exceed the winnings they have already, so would not hold any credibility.  You could never starve them out, because they would allow 50 million people to starve first, and an army of many, such as they have, could survive without any foreign assistance for a very long time!  Even if one day, the opposition are suddenly asked to join talks, this will look fine on the telly, and the front of news papers,  then it would end just as quickly, with the regime conjuring up excuses, and everything will start over again.  This will go on until the end of time, or until the people, (and that is not, the onlookers standing at a safe distance,) decide to act, once they identify the right leader for the job.

Judging by some of the past comments made by supposedly, prominent people, who use their blood heritage as an automatic right to position & status, therefore believe they have the perfect right to dictate or influence the general public, is more in tune with hereditary king or Queen ship, of past centuries, then people's choice?   Although this is still up held in Britain, and a few other sovereign countries, it is more ceremonial then leadership, because they do not influence politics, and are carefully monitored by royal watchdog committees to ensure this. 

Some would say, that comments made over the past weeks by these individuals, could fall in line with communist ideals, fine, if that's what the people want, but should they not be given a chance to decide for themselves through elections, after they have had adequate time to study the different ideals? 
The support to ASSK, shown by these certain people, could resemble a back door entrance for communism, because, due to the fact of no other party, which is not affiliated to the NLD, is permitted to know what is going on, could lead to ASSK, herself being tricked into a system where the SPDC conspires to draw the NLD into a false political 'contract' which would then be used by the regime as a legitimate passing of government, by conveniently recognising the election results, making any act past by the NLD as legal.   This would then give the regime the legal argument that the NLD used its election mandate to set out, what will in effect give the regime total control but seen as though its what the people want.  

As I see it, this is what the PDP has foreseen for some time, and had the foresight to break away from what they saw as a quicksand's, and is preparing for.  Perhaps not as I view it, but certainly preparing for skulduggery of some kind.  At the moment support for the NLD may appear to be strong because of unlimited media coverage, but the truth is, and has been for some time, that those who are genuinely loyal and, who should be respected, are being led like rats along the burning jetty, and into the sea, only to perish in burning oil.  Blind loyalty is what dictators survive on; democracy is guided by open information and intelligent choice.

If the NLD is for the people, as it preaches, it can overshadow the SPDC by using the mandate they believe is still there, and if the world recognise it as such, to publicly set a date for new elections.  This would show the world, that new steps have to be taken, and is recognised by the NLD, instead of them continuing along the stubborn road to nowhere.  By clearly stating the date of new elections would open up all manner of new doors.  It would give more credibility to other parties, stopping all the critical remarks, and will unify and strengthen opposition toward the regime.  Because the world recognises the NLD as election winners, they should by logic, recognise a call for general elections, if passed by the NLD?  If this were to happen, who knows, it may be seen as ethical for donations to roll into a central fund where all accepted registered parties could draw from, to help toward campaign costs?
These are ideas, which although may be seen as silly to a political expert, something I am most certainly not, is all part and parcel of democracy, because from these, 'Regarded as silly', ideas, can come, realistic moves.  So 'road maps' which are seen as stupid, by some voices, should be scrutinised, dissected, mixed up with other road maps, to see if at least one idea is acceptable to all?  Then you start again, with more ideas, and you don't stop until every answer has been either, answered or a compromise is agreed.  I am referring to military tact in my opinions, where, before any action, every aspect of the operation is scrutinised, all ides are looked at, and nothing is laughed at, only discarded as irrelevant. Every member of the team will contribute something toward the success of the operation. Apart from the most obvious answer of certain individuals preventing progress because of personal ego, why is this so difficult to recognise for Burma, other than the PDP?

We as org members do not just support a cause because it's expected of us, we spend many dozens of hours reading and researching into all the info we can lay our hands on what ever our subject may be.  We are fortunate, in that we can probably access more info than the people inside Burma, and in many cases, more than those outside, so we can at least scrutinise much of the untold stories of Burma's post war history from those who were part of it, which would not normally be in the public domain, and even then we can only voice our opinions as we see it, which will no doubt, have their faults. But ideas, as with criticism, thought out from research, is better than ideas or criticism without foundation?

Steve

Uk.org member.

Uk.org

Member comment

11 September 2003

GLADIATORS.
Both my Mum & Dad were born in Burma; they are probably turning in their graves at the amount of in decision which is prolonging suffering.  The NLD has had all the time it deserves to rally its troops, and it has failed miserably, so please stop inciting people to stick behind the NLD, because it is a lost cause.  It's ok for the elders to speak of loyalty, but what did their loyalties achieve for us younger generation?  I regrettably feel guilty that my parents left for England instead of standing their ground.
I purposely joined the British army to learn the skills, I may never be a leader, but I sure as hell know about jungle warfare, and I intend to return to the homeland my parents left. 

Although I'm a former serviceman, I was nothing more than a lowly corporal.  I had no ambitions other than doing my job, something I enjoyed.  At least as a soldier at ground level, I got to see who my opposition were, and very few I would regard as my enemy. Mostly they were like me, tools, to be used by those who rule us, and have some form of hold over us.  Every time I killed opposition it was me who had to face the glaring eyes of corpses, and the bewildering faces of children who are pathetically unaware of reason as to why? 

I never wanted to be a great leader, just a good soldier.  I never wanted to become a slayer, for someone else's power base.  I wanted to become a protector, not the aggressor.  I suffer terrible nightmares, and feel utter contempt toward all those who sit around the arena and coaxed on the gladiators in the ring to slaughter themselves.  It's despicable and it's in human.  It's the 'games' organisers and spectators who should be in the ring, so they can feel the making of scars.  All the time these 'voices' who are no doubt safely out of harms way, innocent, ordinary people are suffering and dying every day.  Who the hell do you all think you are? I am probably a better leader than any of you, but the soldier logic tells me, fight now, or die!
I just read through a few comments on this list, they read more like Harry Potter than real life.  So I suggest that all these 'voices' put on their 'nappies' make their way to the jungles of 'their' beloved country, and damn well fight for their freedom, like all the other free countries had too. Sitting on backsides letting others suffer in your place reveals a great deal about all these 'voices'.  COWARDS!

There is only one way to end conflict.  Kill the perpetrator, and never allow their likes to gain access to power. People keep repeating history as though we need schooling, we don't, its freedom from the likes of tyrants.  History shows us mistakes, but the present never seems to learn from it, only finds excuse for it.

  BO BA SOE


RESPONSE TO 'BO KYAW NYEIN'

Your wannabe letter does I'm afraid, rather resemble a bullet, falling out of the barrel under its own weight, and ending up at your feet because the round injected was of a smaller calibre, Thinking before,  one speaks or does, and the importance of the right type of weapon and compatible ammunition, is paramount to staying alive, at least that's how a soldier would view things.  Although a former British soldier, I am also of Burmese heritage, through my dear mother, Daw Hta Hta.   I asked her if she recalled your father, and being familiar with Burma's internal situation during the WW2, and during post war Burma, I was amazed at just how well informed she was, naturally out of respect, I did not quiz her on her stories, one of which mentioned how U Nu, and your father, split after your father joined a rival party.  She smiled when she mentioned, that he made a mistake by becoming U Nu's rival, because in 1960,
U Nu won the election, and held, what became a life long grudge.   When I showed your 'wannabe' letter to my mother, she began to revert back into Burmese, a language I was never taught because as I learned later in life, my mother believed that Burma will disappear under its own rubbish pit, because no one has the courage to empty it, all that happened and is still happening, is that people place more rubbish in it, until eventually it will explode burying the whole country.  I must admit, I have been too respectful to ask her the meaning of those words. 

Naturally, being of Burmese heritage, I am still very curious as to it present situation.  You mentioned about the importance of 'pooling' resources and to move forward united. and not to have closed talks which you say some groups are proceeding with.  But is this not the exact direction the NLD is taking?  It expects to move in closed circles itself, by dominating all it satellites, and stubbornly ignoring any sensible advise, but at the same time, criticises others for having their own thoughts, is this 'pooling resources'? It appears more in line with that of communism than democracy.  As for 'wannabe' road map, your real motive sounds more to do with antagonising the PDP, possibly because of your father's defection from U Nu's party, followed by further humiliation of watching his party win the election.    I do not wish to insult my mother's country of birth, but it is very difficult when people such as your self, who I would expect to be of level intelligence, are more interested in status arguments than you are of reducing Burma's suffering? 

If you want to encourage unity, then you should be complimenting those who at least are trying to show willing, and suggest to the NLD, it should be passing out invitations to all those 'non' NLD groups who have much to offer, before they come together, something the NLD has not managed since it was elected, and in doing so may not invite the NLD.  As for Burma having only one leader, being, ASSK, and made to sound more like a god, than a flesh and bone human, makes me shudder to think, that such following brought Hitler to power, not that I would place Suu Kyi under their category, but more so many of her followers, if that is not the case, then it should be suggested to her PR people, not to encourage such fanatical support because it makes 21st. century nations, very touchy.    A subject I find slightly bemusing, is for a son or daughter, born to people made famous through events, and being an heir, is automatically accepted as a clone of their father. Being a son or daughter, may entitle a person to carry many of their parents genes, but simply growing up in a different time will alter the thinking of that child, who could under different circumstances to that of the parent, actual become an opposite. My father was made a household name, certainly in military circles, because of his 'Chindit' operations in Burma during WW2, hence why I use a pseudo name. 
Every one is born with particular aptitude in some field, but will only surface if that person is guided into that field.  In the case of ASSK, it was the same as placing an untrained civilian smack in the middle of a battlefield, and giver control of an army?  Enter the wrong field even with aptitude, still requires intensive training, just as Mandela was pacified, and learned politics while he was incarcerated, when many around the world, actually thought he was dead, (Food for thought, as we say) we can only hope that the lady has managed like why's?   Although my father created many of the tactics used against the Japanese, my skills were learned through good training and hard study, and were never taken for granted by the army, nor did it award me special privileges.  I inherited nothing more than the instinct to become a soldier; the skills had to be learned!  I noticed your letter was singed, not by your name but prefixed with your father's title, this is a prime example of lost identity as I see it.  I would never dream of using my fathers name rank and title in order for myself to gain prestige. I have my own identity, and my deeds are mine alone.

The world beat Germany and their allies in WW2, but not before numerous defeats on the battlefield.  Germany and its allies had built a formidable battle group, on land, sea and in the air, the allies had very little in the way of military hardware, including America.  Britain fought a tactical guerrilla war because it could not put equal numbers of fully equipped troops into the field, so 'G' tactics were used to harass and confuse.  During this period, the defence industry was rapidly growing, until all the allies were ready to engage on equal terms.  This should be Burma's road to freedom, but it can only be achieved by strong coalitions formed by all, which means 'all' are fully entitled to place their views on the table, without poorly based criticism!


Walter   (major retired)   UK.org member.

EVERY GAME HAS ITS RULES
Even cheats and confidence tricksters follow a rules, step out of that rule book, and a person is no longer a player.
If a person is not willing to play by the rules, they are not entitled to share the fruits of victory, and more often than not, will be rejected by team members.  It is very rare for individuals attempting to take all, to be successful, because on most accounts, they require others to achieve their goals no matter how diverse that help may be, so long as it is not objectionable!  
It is just as rewarding to be part of success, through individual contribution, without expecting to become immediately nominated for an honour or praise, every time one commits an act. 
I watch with interest, the comments made by groups and by individuals, relating to Burma, including comments from UK.org and its members.  Some, I can understand as being logical and fair, while others portray elements of antagonism if their views are not regarded as sacred. I also accept, that free speech is what we are all fighting for, and hopefully, the majority of the people are not influenced by incitement to revolt, without first sitting down and talking. 

Every democracy has its army, which, has it generals, who are promoted and controlled by government, the government is elected by the people, the general in turn, controls his soldiers,  governments declare war, and the generals declare the order of battle.  Take away the generals in time of conflict, and replace them with corporals, and you have disorder, chaos, anarchy leading to revolution, which will threaten both government and society.  In an established democracy, in that order, is simple logic, which read wrongly, has been the cause for disaster for many countries!  France is a prime example of the people dictating to the very government they elect to represent them. Britain suffered this delusional concept after the Second World War, with strikes and discontentment among the ordinary people,  who believed that communism and socialism was their way to freedom, this is not democracy, this is revolution in the guise of democracy, fired up by a few power seeking despots, who prey on the inadequacies of the less fortunate.  France can be nominated as Europe's exhibit number1, when it comes to creating animosity among its own people and other nations, because of its demanding nature without rhyme or reason, other than an irritating arrogance.  Its system of politics is run by inexperienced ego searching civil institutions, which believe the only way to achieve results, is by creating mayhem, no matter who on the sidelines are hurt, and they refuse to answer to anyone.  Britain is one of the biggest financial contributors to Europe, and France is among those who most benefit, and still they cry wolf.  

The 'road maps'.
The only clear cut route to an agreement where all pro-democracy groups will follow the same path without debate is total unconditional step down of the regime. It will never happen, using tactics as mentioned above! 
In war it is the ordinary rank and file soldier who lays shaking and frightened, as the shells rain down on him, its his blood  splattered over the battlefield, he is the one who buries his comrades, if indeed the battle arena allows him that time.  It is the ordinary soldier who stands his ground in front of an enemy; it is the ordinary soldier who is remembered after the war.  But, he plays no part in negotiations after the battle, or the re-structuring of society after the war, he simply becomes the bricklayer, bus driver, doctor, pilot, nurse, street cleaner, shop assistant, taxi driver, together with all the other essentials of a civilised society.  He fought as part of a tem to bring about the peace he now enjoys, and what so many of his comrades in arms, died for.  He was not a general during the war; after all, he never learned the skills needed to make the rank, so why would he warrant that rank now war has reached the negotiation stage? 


I joined the British army as a (15) fifteen, year old lad as a junior leader, (military college) I was a sergeant major, at (30) thirty, I made captain, at (36) thirty six, and retired as major, at (48) forty eight.  I have lived through (15) fifteen conflicts around the world, suffered wounds, (11) eleven times, I have studied for, and was tested on, (46) forty six, consecutive military course's on everything from battlefield soldiering, to civil restoration,  I received honours in all of them, but I would never have made 'general', and I would never attempt the role!  Every man and woman has their role in life, disrupt these roles by placing the wrong people in the wrong jobs, and chaos will surface. 

Soldiers of Burma.
Whilst all those activists opened the pages of Burma's plight, to the world, a serious underground war has been waging unknown and unseen, both in Burma and around the world, a war consisting of only a few dedicated individuals who trust no one but themselves, who work in total secret, and at tremendous risk.  Some have paid the penalty for bravery, where both their exploits, and them, will never be known.  Others still work in this dangerous and closed world, who without, no war could ever be won.  It takes many years and many mistakes, to place these quite but highly intelligent people, who, at the end of the day are field soldiers,  whereas, those who have lived and learned the art of leadership and all that goes with the job are the generals.  Very few people hold the qualities, or the qualifications to lead without distributing anarchy, whereas the individual who wants to be recognised, will shout and scream for attention, he does not understand, therefore will not accept, diplomacy or commonsense, he will spread discontentment in order to gain notoriety, at the expense of those who fought on the battlefield for order, self respect, and ultimately democracy.  As an employee of a major company, one would not play a decisive part in the running of that company, unless all the qualifications have been achieved.  The only other way to 'influence' decisions is to become a share holder in the company, where powers of sacking the boss is in your hands, providing you can convince other share holders it is in their interest.  Democracy is played out in the same manner.  As a member of a society a person is a share holder in that society, and has the power to elect its leaders.  If an individual has passionate views, they can become part of the political game themselves by standing at local elections, which is the first step to the University of Politics.  When they reveal their qualifications to the public, it will be them who decide whether or not 'they' considers that person worthy.

When new elections finally reach Burma, it would have been achieved by many, on many fronts, but all sacrifices could be wasted due to stagnation or defeat on the political battlefield, which can be the result of an individual, who wants all the glory, and attempts to lock out any non-aligned factions.  These individuals are normally coerced by hangers on, who themselves, dream of nothing but positions of grandeur, and would never, under normal circumstances be eligible for rank and status. These parasites create their own security fence, and in doing so, beit, inadvertently or not, are participating in the decline of that leader!

Democracy, in its early stages can also suffer this fate, if the right people are not vetted and correctly placed, backed up by secure logistics.  Those who risk all, for their own ego, or profit, will destroy the prospects of many.  It requires much more than intellect and academic credentials to lead, that is why certain leaders fail in their task, and we in Britain have experienced our fair share of failed leaders.
If the front line soldier wants to influence his government, then he must use that service to learn, then, on leaving the military, join organisations which suit your needs, for me, I find this platform in the form of UK.org.  I use this platform with respect, to voice my opinions in a number of areas that I am concerned about,  I do not abuse it for my own ends, or demand that I sit on the upper benches, If my views are met by others, with logic and commonsense, and not purely to promote my own ego, then UK.org will follow the correct procedures, to lay my views as a collective body, representing millions of former service personnel, to the relevant political authority.  If after debate, sensible and logical refusals or denial come back in return, then I accept it for the good of my country, because those at the top, are privy to subjects and events that I will not be aware of, therefore I am not in a position to dictate in an area otherwise controlled by events on a much bigger stage.

I am, at this point in time, coming to the final exams of my political science's degree, and hope to join the United Nations in a post, where my past experience and qualifications, can play a contributing role as part of a team, helping where ever we can, I do not expect to be offered the job as Secretary General,, simply because I have a famous father honoured by his country. .I could not do the job, just as many could not do mine, and I will receive greater reward by living my own identity with my own ideals.

Walter  (Major retired):        UK.org member.  

UK.org
Member comment

08 September 2003

THE CAT HAS BEEN PLACED AMONG THE PIGEONS!

It appears voices have been prised from the pits of silence.  From my observations over the past week, on various comments and statements taken from a mixed contribution, it seems as though the PDP, or perhaps its chairman, has really tossed the cat among the pigeons. All it took was the infamous 'road maps' to draw out the philosopher's, historians, critics, annalists, idealistic symbolic fools and all, perhaps every one of them should stand for leader, except of course those in love, because they all seem to have the answers, or rather they do not, confusing?  At the end of the day they are people who, it appears, are individuals who could not decipher how to open a packet of crisps, and then fail to decide if they should open the salt,. Not I may add, because it's difficult, but because it's too easy!     Do these intelligent and hopefully stable minds, seriously believe that everything they say, be it for or against which ever way they swing, has not already been well thought out by most of those who have been struggling against the regime for years.   Do they consider themselves, the only people of Burma, ever to collect degrees, and therefore, consider all others as stupid?  How the hell do they know what goes on behind the scenes of this war, they don't, no more than I know what our secret service is doing in Iraq?  I am curious as to some people's choice of comparisons with Burma, including some org members.   Do these people, when meeting a stranger for example, associate that stranger with someone they already know, and as a consequence treat that stranger with the same casual attitude and mannerisms he shows to a known friend or associate, or does he treat the stranger with caution and new expectations?

When are the intelligent minds of Burma going to stop making ridiculous statements which only reveals how good at reading the author is?  It's a shame there are no mathematicians on the stage, at least 'they' look for solutions instead of constantly repeating the equation.
I have been following Burma's cause for some years now, but I must confess I have found better causes, so this is my first, and my last comment, so I will not be around to read any replies.   What does appear to be missing from this entire mixed garbling, are the people who dare to mention armed aggression as the only means to rid Burma of the regime, after all, everyone else is at it.  Light a few hot coals under the feet of the generals if anyone is brave enough to take it on.  Burma needs individuals who carry out their convictions, not people who sit around like daisies waiting for the wind to carry their seeds to sow.  Burma should stop in its tracks, study its present situation, build up a guerrilla army, hit where it hurts, wear down the ordinary regime soldier so he is to scared ever to enter the jungle, make him petrified of even going to the toilet in case it explodes, even when he fires his weapon in case it back fires, For every village destroyed or civilian killed or hurt, hit back at regime homes and families. 
Just a few radical ideas, it did after all work for the IRA.

My days of thinking about Burma just ended, as too did my membership of the org.  I won't even wish you luck, because you need more than that. 

Roger, the disillusioned dodger. .

UK.org.
Member Comment

02 September 2003

More food for thought:

The scenery stays the same, roles are rotated for some actors, but still the same repetitive monologues are being spewed out.  These actions indicate, once again, the utmost contempt held toward the people of Burma, by the SPDC, together with the attitude of complete indifference to their welfare.  Or, is it with good intention, that the SPDC is trying yet another route to democracy, hopefully to avoid the risk of the country falling into anarchy?

It does not matter what the SPDC do or say, it will invariably be regarded as a diversion away from the truth, as seen by most people of Burma.  These attitudes derive from years of hardship endured by Burma's people, and the constant chanting of those safely exiled in far away places. Of course the regime is the cause for Burma's dilemma, but western governments, and their agents, have repeatedly ignored the presence of other political voices from inside Burma, as irrelevant, other than a "hallo its nice to meet you", an indication perhaps, of them not 'wanting' to apply too much force against the SPDC, because, if they were seen, to be showing support for non NLD groups, it may have inadvertently brought all groups together, forming a much stronger union than is at the present, instead, groups as with the DAB, were left to fall into decline?  Those who understand the intricacies of Burma politics, will know exactly what I mean?  The excuse; that the NLD, as winners of an election must be the only recognised body in Burma, is ridiculously insulting to the Burmese people who, like us in the west, have varying degrees of thought, on how their lives should be conducted, and they can only voice those views through party politics, an opportunity they never had in the past, as it was pure, blind jubilance, of the possibility of becoming free from tyranny, accompanied with the monumental praises of Aung San, in the form of his daughter, that the NLD won the election.  Under those atmospheric conditions Santa Clause could have been elected.  

Take away the multi pronged assault, which can only come from combining the efforts of a party political system where a multitude of ideas could eventually succeed against a common enemy, instead of, leaving only a weakly led, self possessed party, to take on the might of the SPDC, and you are backing a loser, and as we say, "the proof is in the eating"!  By showing support only, for the NLD, of a magnitude, which could only have been orchestrated with careful planning, and with the help of the media, assisted by a few easily impressionable journalists, the struggle against the SPDC, was made weaker, not stronger!
A report on this 'list', under the 'Guardian' suggested that Burma has only one worthy leader, and 'her' NLD.  So now, it could be read, that Burma is a country where all, apart from the lady,  are considered unworthy to lead, and the NLD does not represent them, but is a symbol toward her?  If the author of this ill thought through article is British, I suggest he joins forces with the SPDC, if not having done so already?

The people of Burma are of a different mind today.  They have had over a decade to assess and evaluate the situation.  By the time new elections arrive, it will not be a matter of rushing to vote blindly with their hearts, but instead, will depend on the campaigning skills of all the political parties, and of course, the past record of failures will go against those who failed the people.   

The Media, who are experts at assuming, and rarely operate with facts, because they prove to be boring, played a part in portraying the NLD as the only party in opposition to the SPDC, knowing it could never defeat them.  By highlighting the NLD, or Suu Kyi, beyond proportion, it has purposely, or inadvertently held back a multi pronged political assault, which could very well have succeeded in pushing the SPDC from its stall. If all the groups inside Burma, along with those very clever minds elsewhere, had the same prolonged and intensified publicity as Suu Kyi, a strong union of members would have evolved, combining political and military clout.    It has taken more than a decade for a few major nations, to 'appear' they have come to the conclusion, that the SPDC cannot be beaten by words, or the NLD.  But they have known this for years!  They believed, that under a banner of mixed groups,
(Obviously referring to ethnic groups) Burma could, after defeating the regime,  split into a mass of smaller autonomous countries, and may become  door mats to various foreign influences, which in turn could start another cold war, on the other hand, if Burma was unified under one flag, it would be easier to control, and no 'single' foreign nation could secure dominance to the point where serious 'big boy' confrontations, such as;  Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, to name just a few from the past, could happen?   At the present time it is the SPDC who are seen as the only force to prevent Burma from breaking up, therefore, would it not be in the interest of certain countries, to reduce the opposition to the point of collapse, using the guise of non-violence, and in failing to promote other leaders or parties, are in fact extending the life of the regime????  To understand Burma's politics, a person must study world politics first, and for those who do not understand it, allow those who do, get on with it!  To ignore it, is to fall into all the man traps set for you. 

No amount of criticisms aimed at foreign powers, will make the situation change, the reality is, that certain countries dominate world politics, and our economies, a fact we all have to bear.   To beat it, is impossible, one must 'join' the bigger game first, instead of being ruled by it, as are the NLD, and then compete with equal cunning, and Burma does possess such minds, that are not only capable, but are in many ways, superior to those already on the board, perhaps not as experienced, but are certainly worthy to participate, in negotiating a better deal for the people of Burma.. 

Josh
A UK.org member.