SEAPA Alert: Burmese journalist U Win Tin released after 19 years

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008 7:16 PM
SEAPA Alert: Burmese journalist U Win Tin released after 19 years in prison

Burmese journalist U Win Tin, the longest-serving political
prisoner in military-ruled Burma, was released on September 23,
along with 9,000 others, media reports said.

Mizzima News Agency, a SEAPA partner, said that aside from U Win
Tin, who had been incarcerated in Burma’s notorious Insein prison
for 19 years, several other political prisoners have also been
released.

A report from Reuters quoted U Win Tin as saying, “I will keep
fighting until the emergence of democracy in this country.”

Also granted amnesty were Daw May Win Maung, an elected Member of
Parliament (MP) in 1990 from Mayankone Township, Taungoo MP Aung
Soe Myint, and National League for Democracy (NLD) member U Aye
Thin, according to NLD spokesperson Nyan Win.

The Southeast Asian Press Alliance — a coalition of press freedom
advocacy groups from the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia –
welcomes the release of U Win Tin. At the same time, the coalition
notes that many more political prisoners remain in Burma’s jails.
SEAPA therefore maintains its call for the immediate and
unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience in Burma.

About U Win Tin

U Win Tin is a former editor of the “Hanthawathi” newspaper and
founder of the NLD, which was denied the right to govern the
country despite its landslide win in the 1991 general election.
Until his release, he was the longest-serving political prisoner in
military-ruled Burma. He had been behind bars for more years than
even NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

U Win Tin was sentenced in 1989 to a total prison term of 20 years
on various charges, which included instigation to civil
disobedience against martial law, and publishing “anti-government
propaganda”, including his denouncing of human rights abuses at
Insein. Despite widespread reports of his failing health, promises
of his release in 2004 and 2005 were not fulfilled.

The International Committee of the Red Cross had been barred from
visiting him since 2006. U Win Tin has had two heart attacks and
has suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes and an inflammatory
disease that affects the spine. His poor health was exacerbated by
ill treatment, which has included torture, lack of medical
treatment, solitary confinement without bedding, and being deprived
of food and water for long periods of time. Even though a prison
doctor attends to him twice a month, he is dependent on medication
and food brought by his family and friends.

Burma Tops US Agenda at Upcoming UN General Assembly

By LALIT K JHA / UNITED NATIONS

Monday, September 22, 2008 <!– , –>

The United States of America has made it clear that the current situation in Burma is among its top priorities during the annual General Assembly Session of the United Nations, which opened last week.

The 63rd session of the UN General Assembly formally began with Burma taking over as one of the 21 vice presidents of the annual session. More than 100 heads of governments and heads of states, besides a large number of world leaders, are scheduled to address the General Assembly beginning on Tuesday.

In the run up to the General Assembly Session, top United States officials said President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when they meet world leaders, will make it a point to seek cooperation of the international community to help in the restoration of democracy in Burma and protection of human rights.

Bush will also take up the issue when he meets UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at UN headquarters in New York.

“The president will meet with Secretary-General Ban to discuss the full range of challenges facing the United Nations, including U.N. reform, Georgia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe,” National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told White House reporters.

Briefing reporters about US priorities during the General Assembly, the country’s US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad said: “We’ll continue efforts to increase pressure on Burma, to make progress on the political track.  There has been no progress on that.”

Joining the US on this issue would be two other permanent members of the Security Council—Britain and France. The latter made it clear last week that it is not satisfied with the steps initiated by the secretary-general on Burma and wants more pressure on Burma.

However, the new General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, the former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister and a fierce critic of the US, is unlikely to take a strong interest on Burma as was the case with his predecessor, Srgjan Kerim, who regularly used to meet  with Special UN Envoy on Burma Ibrahim Gambari for updates.

Brockmann has made it clear that he holds an anti-US agenda at the UN, which will make things difficult for the pro-Burmese democracy lobby at the UN.

The Irrawaddy recently spoke with UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari about his meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi, his disappointments and his hopes for the future of Burma.

Monday, September 22, 2008

The Irrawaddy recently spoke with UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari about his meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi, his disappointments and his hopes for the future of Burma.

Ibrahim Gambari

Question: Several UN special envoys to Burma have come and gone over the past 20 years, each time leaving the country empty-handed. What is your take on that?

Answer: Well, I can only speak for my own role. I took on this assignment in May 2006 as Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, but I was not designated as special advisor on Myanmar [Burma] until May last year. So my own engagement is rather more recent.

It has had its ups and downs. But I think—if one wants to be fair—one has to see that before I came, for two and half years, no special envoy of the UN was even allowed in the country.

I am probably the only foreigner to be allowed to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, which I have done on seven occasions. I think it is also fair to say that we have therefore opened a high-level engagement between the UN and the authorities in Myanmar.

They can’t claim that they are not hearing the message of the international community, because we have been saying this directly and indirectly. Directly to them and through my reporting to them through the General Assembly President, the Group of Friends and the Security Council at their request.

It is also fair to say that in the aftermath of the crisis ­in September and October ­we managed to establish the commencement of dialogue, between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi. It is regrettable that that high promise has not been realized.

Q: So what went wrong between then and now?

A: I believe­ from my last conversation with Aung San Suu Kyi in March ­that she posed a number of questions through the minister [Aung Kyi] to the authorities and did not get answers.

Sometimes, she didn’t get the answer fast enough because, she believes, the level of the interlocutor was not high enough.

We­ the United Nations, the Good Offices Role of the Secretary-General ­supports the request that this dialogue should be resumed and should not be broken up even when there are disagreements, and that the government should consider raising the level of the interlocutor on their side so that there would be prompt responses to her questions.

Q: When you went to Burma last time, Suu Kyi refused to meet you. Why?

A: To be honest with you, I do not know.

What I can say for sure [is that] I have met her seven times now since May 2006 and each time she always emphasized this: the central role the UN is promoting dialogue between her and the government and is bridging an all-inclusive process of national reconciliation.

Secondly, she has often expressed disappointment on the couple of occasions I have been in Myanmar that I have not been received at the highest level of the government. So it was quite a surprise to me and a disappointment, frankly, because each time I have met her, I am able to report her views to the UN.

Since so many things had happened since I last met her in March­: the referendum, the cyclone, the constitution­, I would have very much liked to hear her views on all these issues and report them faithfully to those who are interested.

And, I do often pass on her views to the authorities and her position to engage in time-bound substantive dialogue.

Q: What is your sense on why she did it?

A: There are all kinds of speculation. One is that she is frustrated. She wanted to show her frustration with her continued detention and her frustration with the slow pace of the political process.

I think she may have had a point.

Q: During your last visit, was the military junta the only channel of communication between you and Suu Kyi?

A: Yes. I tell the government beforehand who I would like to see and they make the arrangements. Often I do not get what I request, unfortunately.

Q: You are very often accused of becoming a prisoner of the government when you go there. You spend most of your time meeting officials and people who support the government, and not the opposition leaders.

A: Well, that is not entirely fair. For example, the last time I met with the NLD central executive committee twice. The second meeting was more than an hour. It was very substantive, very productive. And the statement that came out of the NLD was that they were pleased with the meeting.

I also met with the minister in charge of relations with Aung San Suu Kyi and had a good discussion on how to resume dialogue. I wanted to find out what is really responsible for this break in dialogue, and how it can be revived.

I met, of course, with other representatives of civil society­, the Red Cross and the Chamber of Commerce, but it is true that most of the people I met were pro-government.

Q: After your last visit, a number of Burmese people and observers said that your mission has failed­, your mission had lost steam. Do you think that’s fair?

A: The [UN] Secretary-General, on whose behalf I act, has come out to say that he does not regard the mission as a failure, ­that it is a process of consultation, of mediation.

But it is also very clear that we are frustrated that no tangible results are coming out of the process. That is what the people of Myanmar want and that is what the international community expects.

I left five issues in the hands of the government:

First: The release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.

Second: The commencement, without delay, of a substantive time-bound dialogue between the government, Aung San Suu Kyi and others.

Third: to create a climate and enhance the credibility of the process [so that] any future election in the country would be more likely be accepted by the people of Myanmar and the international community.

[Fourth] Then we had the issues of a more broad-based social economic discussion in the country through the creation of a national economic forum.

Fifth: how to regularize the engagement of the Good Offices role of the [UN] Secretary-General and the government. It should be regular and routine, including the possibility of stationing a staff or two of mine in Rangoon to prepare for visits and be liaison persons in between visits.

So, we are waiting for the government [to react] to these points on the table.

Incidentally, when I discussed these points with the central executive committee members of the NLD, they appeared to support all except the election.

I must use this opportunity to say one very important point: people criticize the Good Offices role as, in effect, blessing the government’s “Road Map.”

I want to clarify that the road map is the government’s road map. The opposition has reservations and the international community has its own views.

It was made very clear that we want an all-inclusive national reconciliation process; a dialogue that [would address] the real concerns of the people; the discussion of social economic issues; and how to achieve a democratic, peaceful united and prosperous Myanmar with full respect for the human rights of its people.

Q: Now there seems to be a deadlock. How do you plan to address it?

A: I prefer to use the word “challenges.” one is how to get the government to respond positively to the five points that we raised during our last visit.

The second is how to get Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD back to the political process fully;

The third challenge is how to bridge the gap between some key members of the international community.
 
Q: How do you propose to address those challenges?

A: First, the [UN] secretary-general convened a meeting of his “Group of Friends on Myanmar” and he chaired the meeting for two hours last Friday. He plans to have another meeting of the Group of Friends at a ministerial level.

The UN can only be effective and strong if the members want it. So, we need the help of those who have influence on all sides, so that these gaps that are mentioned­, these three challenges­, can be met.

Also, the [UN] secretary-general has indicated that we have to take a deep breath and rethink, reprioritize our strategy and our point of engagement with the authorities. We can’t abandon the people of Myanmar.

Third, the [UN] secretary-general has encouraged Indonesia’s initiative to have a small group of some countries who are closest neighbors to Myanmar and who have some [experience] of transition from a military to a democratic regime, and to whom the [Burmese] authorities are more likely to listen to, including China and, we hope, India.

Q: Is that going to be at a Head of the State level?

A: No, I don’t think so; but hopefully at a ministerial level. I think it is up to the Indonesians to announce that.
 
Q: So now, you would like to pause for a couple of months?

A: Not necessarily. A deep breath, as I said.

Q: When are you next going back to Burma?

A: An invitation has been issued to return. The important thing is not to visit for the sake of it. We need to prepare carefully this time, so that some positive response, ­a tangible response ­to those issues which we left on the table [is forthcoming].

Q: But the [UN] secretary-general is planning to go there in December?

A: He has said very clearly that he went to Myanmar twice under exceptional special circumstances.

It was a very successful mission. The authorities relaxed some of the restrictions and they saw the value of the international cooperation.

One of the positive outcomes of that cooperation was that the tripartite core group mechanism­, Burma, Asean and the UN­, is working well in the case of Cyclone Nargis.

That showed the authorities in Myanmar that the international community brings positive results and shows how the spirit of cooperation with Asean and the UN could be extended to political matters.

But the [UN] secretary-general has made it very clear that he would go to Myanmar provided that tangible results come out through the Good Offices role, including through my activities.

Q: So there are a few pre-conditions for his visit?

A: I do not want to make it a pre-condition. But, as I said, this is what we would like to see.

Q: Including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi?

A: Including responding positively to all the five issues which I have put on their table.

Q: The French ambassador said outside the Security Council that the [UN] secretary-general needs to put more pressure on Burma. Do you agree with that?
 
A: We want all those who have influence to exercise this influence in tangible ways on the authorities in Myanmar so that this dialogue will resume without any further delay.

Q: Do you think there is any conflict of interest because you are on the board of the U Thant Institute and, as you know, there is not a good chemistry between the U Thant circle and the Aung San dynasty in Burma?

A:  First of all, I was not aware of those dynamics when I joined the U Thant board.

The U Thant Institute is an NGO. I joined the international advisory board of this NGO when I was a special advisor to the [UN] secretary-general on Africa. The role U Thant played as UN secretary-general in Africa is not often clearly understood.

That was my motivation for joining the U Thant Foundation and it remains valid. I do not see any conflict of interest. If I did, I would reassess my membership of the NGO.

Q: What is your own view on the 2010 elections?  

A: My own view, which is not that of the [UN] secretary-general is that [although] we are mandated under the Good Offices role to extend technical assistance to countries that request them, [we should not wait] until 2010 to create the conditions that would enhance the credibility of the elections.

We want to act now to prevent disunity and divisions later. It is possible therefore that action can be taken­, an all-inclusive process, a transparent process, a process that is free and fair and can be implemented between now and 2010.

Q: After your last visit and so much criticism and calls for your resignation, at any point did you think that you would submit your resignation?

A: As a human being, of course you feel discouraged, particularly when somebody’s criticism is based on an erroneous report on my position, ­in this case the road map and the elections.

But it comes with the territory. For example, I have been characterized as too close to the regime.
Well, there was a time when the regime thought I was too close to Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD.

As long as I have the confidence of both sides, and as long as the [UN] secretary-general has confidence in me, I am prepared to continue and engage the challenge. But we need help­, it is not a personal thing.

Q: Last question. When you go to Burma, what do you eat­ Burmese food or something else?

A: only Burmese food. The people of Myanmar are very good people. They are endowed with very good mineral resources. They used to be a leading country in Asia­, their educational system, rice production, agricultural production.

The country produced the first Asian secretary-general. A country like that deserves to move in a direction, which we all want­ a peaceful democratic, united country with full respect for the human rights of its people.

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14293

To save Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, A Courageous Freedom Fighter

http://burmadigest.info/2008/09/10/to-save-daw-aung-san-suu-kyi-a-courageous-freedom-fighter/

By Sao Noan Oo

In the last two centuries unfair treatment of society by other groups or by their government has improved greatly. This has been due to campaigners and freedom fighters of the world. They resisted and rebelled against dictatorial governments and fought for liberty and freedom. In the face of danger and suffering they have changed society not only in which they lived but in the entire world.

To name but a few George Washington, was the Commander in Chief of the US Army who fought to free America from the British rule. Ghandi was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian Independence movement. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest freedom fighters who led the Civil Rights Movements in the sixties and fought for equal rights of the black and white Americans, thus removing some colour prejudices in the world. Nelson Mandela was one of the prominent Leaders who with his Nationalists fought to overthrow the Apartheid Government in South Africa and replaced it with a multiracial Government.

The Suffragettes both in the UK and USA fought for the right of women to vote. In Britain, in 1918 Representative of the People Act of 1918 was passed in Parliament, granting limited voting rights to women. Two years later similar rights were given to women in the USA under the amendment of the US constitution, and in 1928 British women were granted the same voting rights as men.

The French Resistance Fighters were one of the most courageous freedoms fighters during World War II. They were individuals and groups who resisted being ruled by Nazi Germany. The French Government collaborated with the Germans but part of the population felt they could not live and be part of the Nazis. They campaigned and resisted the Nazi rule through out the war. They formed resistance organisations and many groups sprang up, and did everything within their power to sabotage the Nazi regime: there were armed groups who attacked road and rail networks, helped prisoners to escape, printed underground newspapers and spied on the Germans to help the British and Americans. Those caught engaged in these activities were shot or imprisoned for many years. Despite these dangers many brave men and women joined the French resistance and fought to liberate France from the brutal Nazi oppression.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is Burma’s Freedom Fighter and has become an Icon of the world. She has suffered and sacrificed her life for the peoples of Burma. As far I can gather she stands for freedom without violence, equality, democracy, truth and power from kindness.

Than Shwe and his Generals cannot stand “the Lady,” because there are enormous polarities in their vision for Burma. The regime believes in oppression, totalitarian rule, dictatorial regime, hiding the truth with lies, disregard for justice and human rights, and power with the use of weapons.

Only people who have been brain washed, threatened or bribed will support such a cruel, greedy, selfish and inconsiderate regime Unconsciously some of such people later or sooner adopt the same identity and act  and think like their dictators.

In her struggle for freedom for Burma Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said she had followed the footsteps and tradition of her father. Unlike Than Shwe and his Generals who continually deceive and lie to the people, she strongly believes in political integrity.

The people of Burma love Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. They have a very high opinion of her and think that she is a lady of conscience. The people have complete faith in her ability and believe that when she is free she will lead them to victory. But all must realise that no matter how hard she tries or how deep her commitment, like all freedom fighters she cannot succeed on her own.  In order to save her it would be good if the peoples of Burma were to fully understand what Daw Aung San Su Kyi is fighting for, her ideology and her vision for Burma. She needs people who have the same ideology and conviction as herself to support her. It does not mean that they have to meet up with her, because this would not be possible under the watchful eye of the junta. The freedom fighters could use her ideology, vision and hope as an inspiration and spread the message around. The recent downfall of the President of Pakistan, Colonel Musharraf has been successful because the oppositions had the support of the ordinary civilians.

Most Burmese people recognise and look up to Bogyoke Aung San and his colleagues as great heroes and martyrs because they fought for independence and were assassinated for their beliefs in democracy and equality.  The people also respect and honour Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for her principles. But we should not forget all the unsung and unrecognised heroes of Burma : the resistance armies whose motives are often misunderstood and are labelled as secessionist, rebels, terrorist , drug traders  but  in reality they are fighting for the freedom of their peoples; the 1988 university students, many of whom were murdered, and those alive been imprisoned, yet still active in their struggle; all human rights campaigners, and democracy activists; members of NGO; the Sanghas who demonstrated for the suffering and welfare of their people- to mention all will be impossible. If Burma is to be free from an illegal and dictatorial government and become a democratic country these organisation need support and help from the ordinary citizens.

In Burma there is a great need to unite and strengthen civil society which is completely destroyed by the junta. The majority of people have become mentally and physically fatigued and paralysed. This is what the junta demands. Those who are courageous enough and who have a deep conviction to change the face of Burma’s society must encourage and instil self-worth into all citizens and make them become involved in changing the face of Burma society.

In the modern 21st. century citizens cannot leave their welfare and decision in the hands of activists. They must be wise about politics and the voting system. It does not mean that they should all become politicians. With their own judgement they should be able to vote for a government, whose members will work for the people and not just for their own selfish self. Citizens of Burma must rebuild and strengthen their voice and action and together fight for what they believe in. They must play a part in encouraging each other and become a society with courage, determination and hope for the present as well as for future generations. The voice of the people is very important in creating democracy. If you just want a Leader to tell you what to do , then you are asking the Leader to be a dictator.

Besides strong civil societies, Burma also needs a team of fair and just policemen to protect citizens from criminals and to enforce the law laid down in the Constitution, a Constitution approved and accepted by the people.

Burma also needs strong Armed Forces, whose officers and soldiers take pride in serving their country and its peoples; and whose officers and soldiers do not take the advantage of their position and bully and do what they like to those weaker than them. In this way the Armed Forces and civilians will live in harmony and gain each other’s trust and respect. In a democratic country the legally elected government controls and instructs the army  what to do and not visa versa.

My Country First (Policy Paper)

Sep 20th, 2008

http://burmadigest.info/2008/09/20/my-country-first-policy-paper/

Analysis and Strategy by Prof. Kanbawza Win

 

Prof. Kanbawza Win (a) Dr Ba Thann Win, the incumbent Dean of the Students of the AEIOU Programme, Chiangmai University, Thailand and Professor at the School of International Studies, Simon Fraser University, of British Columbia, Canada can be reached at the SFU Harbor campus in Vancouver.

ARE WE (the ethno-democratic forces) in the doldrums, now that Mr.Gambari mission has utterly failed? If so what should be our strategy and to plot this we have to analyse it and tap on the plausible strategy. Many people were outraged at the Saffron Revolution and the slow response to cyclone Nargis and want to punish the Generals by bringing them to International Criminal Court, in The Hague; others want more sanctions and want Burma to be expelled from ASEAN. Some group work for Burma to be expelled from the UN. Others opted for UN and US intervention.

But what is our target and how do we react? We have to think how to change the status quo. Will taking them to court compel the Generals to give up power? No, they will become more determine? Will more sanction make them yield or hurt the people of Burma more? Two decades have proves otherwise. Is Burma needs more ASEAN or vice versa? The Generals can easily forget the neighbours whom he knows are out and out to exploit the natural and human resources of the country with their sugar coated word of Constructive Engagement. What about expelling the Junta from the UN? It is an impossible feat, where no one recognizes the apposition. Shall we kow tow to the men on the Dragon throne now smart with100 (51 Gold) Olympic medals, top in the world? The day after the Beijing Olympics ended, China’s Defence minister told his Burmese counterpart that he wants to strengthen bilateral ties. After the cyclone soon after brutal repression of an uprising by Buddhist monks they are ready to negotiate, while the world looked away, soothing its conscience with a useless UN envoy. The sordid Burmese Generals are smart and will not listen to Beijing, if it means giving up their power. How about intervention and applying the R2P, now that Russia has applied to Georgia? Who will do it? What about the UN Security Council? How many resolutions has the Security Council passed on Palestine? Is the problem solved?

If the international situation and genuine help is not so rosy let us peep at the domestic situation? Everybody wants a change and is ready to join any bandwagon who will really lead them. The Buddhist monks will not give up easily and is planning something. Is there a possibility of an internal split and a coup? Given the way the Burma Army is organized and how loyalty is rewarded, the likelihood of a coup is very, very slim because all the generals know that it will be the beginning of their end what in Burmese call “Nwar Kwe Kyar Kaik”, literally translated the tiger will prowl if the bulls are not united.

Obviously, the economic situation will get worst by any standard. But it does not necessarily mean that there will be a country-wide uprising to topple the regime. The people are so disorganize that there will only be several sporadic uprisings, which the military can easily quell. We have witnessed how the military is prepared to use an extremely brute force. If so what about the ethnic armed forces? They are very weak with internal split and the truth is that they will continue to be an irritant to the regime for many years to come but they are not in a position to use force to bring about change in Burma, because they never think of the whole country but only for themselves. The only formidable student group that think of the whole country and people, has been reduced from 20,000 to 200 by their leaders. If so, what about the democratic forces in Diaspora? All of them have become internet warriors and are as divided as most of them think he to be Bo Teza but acting as Bo Shu Maung of the thirty comrades in Diaspora.

But the most important factor is that Burma’s neighbors are extremely concerned about instability. If there is an uprising, China does not want to see thousands, if not million of Sino Burmese running back to China, given the hatred to the Chinese by the people of Burma. So also India and Bangladesh does not want the Indo Burman to come back to India as in 1962 where India has to send 60 shiploads to pick up the local Indians. Obviously, Bangladesh does not want the Rohingyas, even though their language is the same as the Chittagonians. Thailand will not recognize the Shan as refugees and so on. If there is no viable alternate government, the neighbors will support another dictator, not necessarily from a Myanmar tribe, to take control and the vicious cycle will start again.

Strategy

Anybody from of Burma knows this strategy, to be a unified among ourselves and be an alternative to the military regime. This must be done both inside and outside of the country. This is easier said than done for both the groups, Myanmar (Burman) and the non Myanmar (ethnics). For the last two decades we are unable to wean out the Mahar Bama (whose only obsession is to overthrow the Junta and return to the pre 1962 days of the civilian government and rough ride shot over the ethnics) from the democracy groups, in as much as the racists of the ethnic group who wants Balkanization something like South Ossetia of Georgia. Both sides knew it that their goals are unreachable and impossible in this age of globalization.

In this aspect we should highlight the American mentality, as hurricane Gustav smashed into the gulf, both Democrats and Republicans joined together to face this natural catastrophe, their unanimous cry being My Country First (don’t even think of comparing with the Junta who holds the elections in face of Cyclone Nargis). What a living example? Can we take a leaf out of it?

After two decades of struggle, the actions of the Burmese dissidents both pro democracy and ethnics alike prove that they would rather prefer to be under the military Junta rather than talk to each other. When ever an attempt was made both side said they are right and the other is wrong. Both of them cannot comprehend or give much talk to the idea of “My Country First”.

No doubt both sides have painful memories of each other and these memories would never go away. It will be difficult task requiring much understanding and patience to get to know each other. The crux of the Burmese problem is ethnic problem. There will be no struggle for democracy, if there is no military coup in 1962, and there will be no military coup, if the civilian government can solve the ethnic problem. The struggle for democracy and solving the ethnic problem are two sides of a coin, if not are two eyes of a human being, one cannot do without the other. The ethnic problem is not a minority problem but major constitutional problem. Having this in mind a long term process is needed if we ever put our country first? After much suffering of the people of Burma at the hands of the Burmese military it is time to take back the country into our hands.

The Burmese proverb says “Pyet Yin A Zin Pyin Yin Kha Na” , meaning if you are in the wrong once you remedy it became usable. We still have time to change our mentality and attitude if we have the will. Now, new faces have pop up in the leadership of the ENC (Ethnic Nationalities Council), the Chairman is a Karenni and the General Secretary, is a Kachin, which demonstrated that Karenni, an independent sovereign states since time immemorial, clearly indicates that they have no inclination for Balkanization and Kachin a major ceasefire group is ready to cooperate with the other ethnic groups to work for a genuine Federal Union of Burma.

On the pro democracy side especially the so called umbrella group usually refers to as UB group still needs to be flexible and show some new faces. They still need to unblock the process of letting their young compatriots to come up.  In choosing a person who will be at the helm of leadership they still need to choose an honest, intelligent leader and will have to give preference to his mentality, ethics, attitude, pride and prejudices and do away with the thinking of being great guns, comprehending an independent media in this age of globalization and advanced information technology is a Must, while bearing the mask of a well mannered diplomat is far better than that of a terrorist.  The genuine spirit of sharing and caring will have to be imbued again as transparency and accountability is the order of the day.

Of the two groups it will be very beneficial, if the new ENC can strengthened itself by giving more preference to the Wa and is humble enough to take the initiative and approach the Myanmar group and once and for all prove that the ethnic nationalities are also eager for democracy and ready to join hands with the Burman/Myanmar brethren. The latter having being infected by an incurable disease call Mahar Bama will not take the initiative obviously and besides their tops think tank viz. all Mr. Zs (whose name start with Z) have betrayed, gone back to Burma  and have become their de facto spokesperson of the Junta in the international arena. So, if these UBs refuse to cooperate then it is high time that the ENC should give serious thought of forming the Union of Nationalities without the Myanmar and let the Myanmar fights the Myanmar.

Hopefully they will cooperate and this time will also have to bring in the Burmese intelligentsia especially the academic activists who never waver and steadfastly supported the noble cause as a third group. Both the ethnic and the pro democratic forces will have to be convinced that these academics will not take their place but only advice them while they have to be executives. These three groups will have to be combined and amalgamated in such a way to form a viable alternative to the military regime and prove it to the international community that we are a better alternative. Then and only then we will be in a position to make a change for our beloved country. This is the first prerequisite and the very foundation for us to do.

This will also be the continuation, if not more than more than the Panglong Conference of 1947.  Our Pyidaungsu (Union of Burma) is like a tree. In the life of trees, one key to survival is having more roots than shoots. If a tree puts on a lot of top growth and few roots, it is liable to be weak –wooded and short lived, but if it puts down a great deal of roots and adds roots slowly, however, it is liable to be long lived and more resistant to stress and strain said William Bryant Logan (see The Frame of Civilization). This will also tantamount to laying the foundation stone for the real Union of Burma.

Making Burmese Cause an International Cause

Once that kind of unity is achieved, the rest is bureaucracy for at last December Seoul Conference, the international community has promised to help, but how? They are findings ways and means and for this we will have to prove that the ethno democratic forces are a viable alternative.

The people residing in the peripherals are best suited to do this for inside Burma the word “Federal” is anathema to the regime and people who did not know the word “Federal” is afraid to study about it. The Burmese language radios should implement this job of educating the people inside Burma. The simple reason for the Burmese army is that if there is federalism the ruling Generals will have to share their power and this is what they are solely afraid of. Now the world has known that the Burmese army has no policy but just power maniacs and is ready to help.

We should also take note that the pro democracy forces under what banner they may be have connections with those inside the country because the majority is the Myanmar/Burma and those inside the country after the saffron revolution and cyclone Nargis are more than ready to join their compatriots of the border regions. How do we exploit this situation?

In the international arena the struggle between the good and the bad, between reason and brute force, between beauty and the beast, dialogue and monologue is best illustrated by the struggle in Burma. Even though leading evil forces have protected the dictators of the world in the long run reason and a much more gentle force will prevail. Burma is a classic example and now the plight of Burma is the most highlighted in the world, what in Burmese we always boast “Myanmar Ko Kaba Thi Say Mae”. The Burmese refugees are in every country something like the Jews prior to Second World War. It is the duty of these Burmese in Diaspora to approach the government of the country which they reside and urge to take action. The dissident media is already a good job but still needs to synchronize with the united movement.

Come November, America will elect a new President, whether it is Democrat led by Barrack Obama or the Republican led by John McCain, they will show their solidarity with the people of Burma. How do we synchronize Burma’s domestic policy with their foreign policy is where the Burmese intellect will have to come in.

The policy of “I alone can do it” will have to be discarded e.g. we know that the major lobby group for Burma in the US is in touch with the high profile American leaders. But they have not uttered a word about the ethnics and want to follow U Nu’s policy of rough riding over the ethnics. Very lately the representatives of the Burmese pro democracy movement, one for Democrat and another for Republican were invited to attend their respective conventions. All of them are from the UB group, what do their share with the ethnic leaders if it is confidential and what do they report to pro democracy group? This is the kind of Mahar Bama spirit which we are pointing out. The idea of “Ko Hle Ko Hto Pa Go Yawk, Ko Myin Ko See Sa Gaing Yawk Yawk” , adapted into English is what ever the consequences we would like to go it alone, no longer applies in this setting if we were to cooperate with each other.

Although the NLD without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a lame duck, is still in a position to do something but both NLD and Daw Suu have said very little about the ethnic problem. Once democracy is achieved everything is possible sounds vague to the ethnic ears is not enough. They would make it very clear that they are eager to solve the ethnic problem and would meet the majority of the ethnic aspirations short of Balkanization.

No Choice

The Junta is against dialogue and its constitution and the seven point road map indicates that it is only gear to monologue where he will dictate and the rest nod their heads and implement the order. They want the marauding Burmese army to be in power perpetually. Without, dialogue there can be no change not to mention the role of the international community. There is no option left for us but to resort to force. The Junta is prepared for this. How do we do it?

Do we really want military intervention by outside power? Do we really want foreign troops in Burma where the foreigners will behave as occupation forces if not as our benefactors? In a modern war like in Iraq or Afghanistan, the main casualties are unarmed civilians, women and children. Burma will follow the same and beside the proximity with China can also be a repeat of the Korea War of the 50s. No, we don’t want anybody to shed a drop of blood for our liberation. Then what? We have to recollect that almost every revolution there is sacrifices. If we dared not sacrifice we might as well do nothing and let the status quo carries on.

We just want arms and ammunition so that we can fight the Junta’s forces on the same level fair and square. And that is where we want the leaders of the pro democracy the ethnic forces to work together hand in hand to fight shoulder to shoulder to deliver the coup de grace. But to do this they must first sit down and talk as what kind of administration do we want once the hated military is gone. What are the constitutional amendments to convince the fear of the ethnic as well as to satisfy and fulfill their aspirations? Ethnic nationalism under the right conditions work for democracy rather than against it says a Prof. Mark R Beissinger from Princeton University (see Journal of Democracy.) There are several cases where ethnic nationalism is the drawing force behind democratization efforts. India and Papua New Guinea which harbours extremely diverse ethnicities are living examples of successful democratizations. Why can’t we copy from it?  Of course the spirit of give and take must prevail and prove it by actions.

In the meantime we will have to convince to the international community to take a longer term approach and start building civil society at the grassroots level in Burma. In addition to humanitarian aid, educational opportunities for the people of Burma must also be provided both inside and outside of the country. But most importantly the international community led by a super power must be the referee in our fighting with the Junta and see to it that the people decides e.g. if the Junta use their fire power in air and sea, that is where the international help is needed not only to knock out the Junta’s air and sea power, but also covering fire power if the latter use heavy guns.

No doubt blood will be shed and we are willing to sacrifice our lives for the future of our children and the younger generation. It is far better to die with our boots on, then to let live the whole generation under the boots of the military.  I often quoted to take the pus out with a surgical knife, before applying the medicine. This is because Burmese Generals being power maniacs will not see to reason and understand only the language of force. They have come to power by force and now only force can drives them out.

But once the Junta is knockout is that the real test will begin, whether we keep to our promises with each other and if the Mahar Bama spirit or racist Balkanization prevails and come to each other’s throat then it will be far better for a status quo. The challenge is to make the world safe for and against ethnicity (see speeches of Senator Patrick Monyhan). The international community will not help, thinking that the Junta be a better choice. Now is the time to reconcile with each other.

To save Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,A Courageous Freedom Fighter

By S. N. Oo 

In the last two centuries unfair treatment of society by other groups or by their government has improved greatly. This has been due to campaigners and freedom fighters of the world. They resisted and rebelled against dictatorial governments and fought for liberty and freedom. In the face of danger and suffering they have changed society not only in which they lived but in the entire world.

To name but a few, George Washington was the Commander in Chief of the US Army who fought to free America from the British rule. Gandhi was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian Independence movement. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest freedom fighters who led the Civil Rights Movements in the sixties and fought for equal rights of the black and white Americans, thus removing some colour prejudices in the world.

Nelson Mandela was one of the prominent leaders who with his nationalists fought to overthrow the Apartheid Government in South Africa and replaced it with a multiracial government

The Suffragettes both in the UK and USA fought for the right of women to vote. In Britain, Representative of the People Act of 1918 was passed in Parliament, granting limited voting rights to women. Two years later similar rights were given to women in the USA under the amendment of the US constitution, and in 1928 British women were granted the same voting rights as men.

The French Resistance fighters were one of the most courageous freedoms fighters during World War II. They were individuals and groups who resisted being ruled by Nazi Germany. The French Government collaborated with the Germans but part of the population felt they could not live and be part of the Nazis. They campaigned and resisted the Nazi rule through out the war. They formed resistance or ganisations and many groups sprang up, and did everything within their power to sabotage the Nazi regime: there were armed groups who attacked road and rail networks, helped prisoners to escape, printed underground newspapers and spied on the Germans to help the British and Americans. Those caught engaged in these activities were shot or imprisoned for many years. Despite these dangers many brave men and women joined the French resistance and fought to liberate France from the brutal Nazi oppression.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is Burma’s Freedom Fighter and has become an icon of the world. She has suffered and sacrificed her life for the peoples of Burma . As far I can gather she stands for freedom without violence, equality, democracy, truth and power from kindness.

 Than Shwe and his generals cannot stand “The Lady,” because there are enormous polarities in their vision f or Burma . The regime believes in oppression, totalitarian rule, dictatorial regime, hiding the truth with lies, disregard for justice and human rights, and power with the use of weapons.

 Only people who have been brainwashed, threatened or bribed will support such a cruel, greedy, selfish and inconsiderate regime Unconsciously some of  such people later or sooner adopt the same identity and act  and think like their dictators.

 In her struggle for freedom f or Burma Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said she had followed the footsteps and tradition of her father. Unlike Than Shwe and his generals who continually deceive and lie to the people, she strongly believes in political integrity.

The people of Burma love Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. They have a very high opinion of her and think that she is a lady of conscience. The people have complete faith in her ability and believe that when she is free she will lead them to victory. But all must realise that no matter how hard she tries or how deep her commitment, like all freedom fighters she cannot succeed on her own.  In order to save her it would be good if the peoples of Burma were to fully understand what Daw Aung San Su Kyi is fighting for, her ideology and her vision for Burma . She needs people who have the same ideology and conviction as herself to support her. It does not mean that they have to meet up with her, because this would not be possible under the watchful eye of the junta.  The freedom fighters could use her ideology, vision and hope as an inspiration and spread the message around. The recent downfall of the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf has been successful because the opposition had the support of the ordinary civilians.

 Most Burmese people recognise and look up to Bogyoke Aung San and his colleagues as great heroes and martyrs because they fought for independence and were assassinated for their beliefs in democracy and equality.  The people also respect and honour Daw Aung San Suu Kyi f or her principles.

But we should not for get all the unsung and unrecognised heroes of Burma : the resistance armies whose motives are often misunderstood and are labelled as secessionist, rebels, terrorist , drug traders  but  in reality they are fighting for the freedom of their peoples; the 1988 university students, many of whom were murdered, and those alive been imprisoned, yet still active in their struggle; all human rights campaigners, and democracy activists; members of NGO; the Sanghas who demonstrated f or the suffering and welfare of their people- to mention all will be impossible. If Burma is to be free from an illegal and dictatorial government and become a democratic country these or ganisation need support and help from the ordinary citizens.

In Burma there is a great need to unite and strengthen civil society which is completely destroyed by the junta. The majority of people have become mentally and physically fatigued and paralysed. This is what the junta demands. Those who are courageous enough and who have a deep conviction to change the face of Burma’s society must encourage and instil self-worth into all citizens and make them become involved in changing the face of Burma society.

 In the modern 21st century citizens cannot leave their welfare and decision in the hands of activists. They must be wise about politics and the voting system. It does not mean that they should all become politicians. With their own judgment they should be able to vote for a government, whose members will work for the people and not just for their own selfish self. Citizens of Burma must rebuild and strengthen their voice and action and together fight f or what they believe in. They must play a part in encouraging each other and become a society with courage, determination and hope for the present as well as f or future generations. The voice of the people is very important in creating democracy. If you just want a leader to tell you what to do, then you are asking the leader to be a dictator.

Besides strong civil societies, Burma also needs a team of fair and just policemen to protect citizens from criminals and to enforce the law laid down in the Constitution, a constitution approved and accepted by the people.

Burma also needs strong Armed Forces, whose officers and soldiers take pride in serving their country and its peoples; and whose officers and soldiers do not take the advantage of their position and bully and do what they like to those weaker than them. In this way the Armed Forces and civilians will live in harmony and gain each other’s trust and respect. In a democratic country the legally elected government controls and instructs the army  what to do and not visa versa.

–
ွ့Sai Kyaw