The Myanmar Mentality : THE UNKEPT PROMISES
The Myanmar Mentality : THE UNKEPT PROMISES
Kanbawza Win
"Hope for the Best but Prepare for the Worst" is the unforgotten speech given by our beloved leader Bogyoke Aung San when he came to London to negotiate for independence of the Union of Burma. The speech implies that if we cannot achieve it by peaceful negotiations we will have to fight for it. Today this would also apply to all the ethnic forces in Burma who are at odds with the Burmese military Junta. Currently the secret negotiations between the pro democracy movement led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the military Junta has left out the ethnic forces. If the Myanmar race, both democratic and undemocratic forces construe the Non-Myanmar as an excess baggage that must be accepted as a necessary evil then the Burmese problem of will never be solved. Their actions seem to indicate a Burmese saying "Ka Lae Dwe Tait Tait Ne, Lu Gyi Dwe Sa Gar Pyaw Nae Dae" meaning, ‘Hey you little fellows keep quiet while we adult are seriously talking’. The nature of the so called ‘Secret Negotiations’ is a clear indication that there is something to hide from the public. If that is the case, then the ethnic groups will have to conclude that as the 1947 Constitution was torn up by the Burmese Junta in 1962 and obliterated up the Panglong Agreement then the ethnic groups have no obligation whatsoever to the Union. Hence fighting the Myanmar Tatmadaw (army) is amounted to legitimate war against an occupying force (for the past decade they have behave in such a manner) and cannot be construed as a civil war.
The very fact that the negotiations are bilateral and not tri-larteral underline the fact that the Myanmar tribe, which is a much stronger, more numerous and resourceful and dominating tribe, wants to rough ride shod over the ethnic groups. The writing on the wall exhibit clearly that major decisions will be made between a Myanmar and a Myanmar, and later these discussion will be expended to the ethnic forces for them to decide either to take it or leave it. This "carrot and stick tactic" denotes that a Myanmar does not treat a non-Myanmar as an equal but of a lower level people who are at their beck and call. Of course the democratic Myanmar will be magnanimous and on paper at least, will treat the ethnic races as equal. In other words, the ethnic groups will be at the whims and the fancy of the Myanmar leaders.
This has been the case since the inception of the Union of Burma when the Karens has no choice but were forced to fight. Then the Mon, Kachin, Shan, Karenni, Arakanese and Chin followed, not to mention the much smaller tribes as the Pa O, Palaung, Tavoynians Rohingys, etc . Today there is no single tribe or ethnic group that has not taken up arm or is still fighting against the Myanmar tribe. Burmese chauvinism and xenophobia run deep into their veins. Until and unless there is cetena, (goodwill) love and sincerity by the Myanmar towards the non Myanmar as showed by our beloved leader Bogyoke Aung San, we cannot visualize a final solution. The Panglong Agreement and the 1947 constitution drawn up under the supervision of Bogyoke Aung San has been trampled upon by the Burmese Tatmadaw belonging to the Myanmar tribe.
A barometer reading of the Junta’s current attitude towards the ethnic forces can be clearly seen in the military offensive against the Karens and the Shans. Their superb diplomacy of "divide and rule " which translates into "let the ethnic forces fight the ethnic forces" e.g. Wa fighting the Shan, Karen Buddhist fighting the Karen Christians and so on, harkened back even to the Burmese democratic days when the Kachin and the Chins were recruited to fight the Karen. In fact it was the Chin forces that defended Rangoon from the Karen who were in the suburbs of Rangoon now called Insein. How many of the Chins and Kachins have laid down their lives in defense of the Union of Burma only to be changed to the chauvinism name of Myanmar. Currently how are the Chin and Kachin being treated? Do the Myanmar respect their culture and religious beliefs? How many times have the Myanmar negotiated with these ethnic groups and how many times have they betrayed or swindled them?
Of course there are several Myanmar who have not approved the proceedings of those in power. They have identified with the ethnic forces and fought shoulder to shoulder with their ethnic brethren, especially the students and the young generation who were forced to flee for their lives in 1988.. The ethnic groups welcomed them with open arms seeing theses young Myanmar like them being persecuted. This also proved that the ethnic groups are not at all racist but simply fighting the Junta and chauvinism. These Myanmar understand more about their ethnic brethren than those who are in Rangoon who are at the helm of the administration. Why are these Myanmar left out of the negotiations?
The treatment by the Myanmar of the non-Myanmar for half a century or so since the inception of modern Burma has guaranteed that no ethnic leader will trust the Myanmar. This is now being reinforced by the current "Secret Negotiations" which deliberately leave out the ethnic groups. Autonomous regions, self determination, and federalism are the words anathema to the Myanmar under the pretext of dismemberment the Union. But the fact is that these attitude covers up the truth, liberty, equality and fraternity.
The ethnic groups together with the people of Burma and the world have been left in the dark. Why? Is the fate of the 47 million Burmese people to be decided only by two persons alone, Khin Nyunt and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi? We have heard about the nature of these negotiation via foreign media only. No announcement or communique has been released. Naturally speculations are rife. Will the blood thirsty Narco- Generals be given impunity in return for an interim civilian government?
Not that we don’t have faith in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Nor do we want revenge over the evil generals but the very fact that important conditions are agreed upon behind our backs indicate that the situation is equivalent to the Burmese saying, "Say Yar Thwa; Khaing Da Loke; Pyan Ma Pyaw Ne" meaning ‘go where you are directed and implement as told and don’t talk back’. Why is the culture of silence imposed on us? Is it a Myanmar way or a Myanmar mentality? We are very much bewildered. If we don’t know the causes, nature and extent of the gross violations of human rights which the Generals are still committing how can the truth be known, not to mention achieving of national reconciliation. We should also remember that the granting of de facto acceptance of impunity for those holding political, military or economic power erodes the very basis of the social order and helps to nurture a culture of violence.
Drawing from the experience of South Africa, it has been found that there is an existential need of the victim to break out of a situation of silence, isolation, fear and falsehood. To know the truth, to recover a shared memory and thus to restore human dignity for the victims and accountability for the perpetrators are MUSTS. We would very much like to find out or how whether this compatible with so called ‘Secret Negotiations’?
Without an intentional attempt to create a space where the stories of humiliation and suffering can be told, where the truth can emerge and collective remembrance restored, the search for justice will continue to divide the community rather than re-establish relationships and contribute to a process of healing. How can forced labour, forced relocation, systematic torture, disappearances, extra-judicial killing, raping of women and children continue even as the ‘Secret Negotiations’ are going on. Why have the Myanmar so stubbornly refused to learn the lessons of the recent past and all this continue to occur? More often than not, we hear the response, "Forget the past, the dead cannot come to life and turn your eyes to the future building of a nation." This simplistic answer, so easily offered by those who have something to hide, has no healing power. It leaves no room for reconciliation. Until and unless the truth is told, unless the criminals are held accountable, or unless those directly responsible and their accomplice confess their guilt, ask for forgiveness and give concrete signs of repentance, there can be no justice and therefore no healing of society. No body in Burma would want to repeat the errors of the past, trapped in cycles of retributive violence. The people yearn for transformation. And this transformation could start with the opening up of the so called ‘Secret Negotiations’. The people of Burma including the ethnic groups have suffered too much from the unkept promises could be spared from experiencing evil wars and bitterness.
Showing posts with label Kanbawza Win. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kanbawza Win. Show all posts
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Examining the American Policy on Burma?
Examining the American Policy on Burma?
Kanbawza Win
Attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in South Korea, US President George W Bush publicly pledged to help restore democracy in Burma, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the Junta as “one of the worst regimes in the world.” Even though Bush’s message reaches not only the Burmese military leaders but also the Junta’s friends, collaborators, psychopaths and apologists around the region, many, however will, turn a deaf ear to this hollow messages because of the simple reason that his words does not match his actions. One wonders why the current American Administration is exercising its megaphone diplomacy.
The very fact that Bush and Rice pushed the Burmese malaise at the UN Security Council against the wishes of the State Department, who are more knowledgeable and the fact that the Chinese and the Russian ambassadors had indicated very clearly that they will cast the negative vote, proves beyond doubt that the Burmese case is worth sacrificing in order to paint the negative picture of both China and Russia. The whole concept of the Burmese people’s struggle for democracy and human rights seems just a small porn to be sacrificed at the altar of the big international chess game of power politics seems to be pictured. It seems that President Bush, living in the niceties of the West, has little comprehension of how it is to live under tyranny, even though he uttered, “The people of Burma live in the darkness of tyranny but the light of freedom shines in their hearts. They want their liberty and one day they will have it,”
While many in the region, including China and India, want to engage with Rangoon, Washington had maintained a correct and bold stance towards the repressive regime. Many a Burmese who are prisoners in their own country admiring Bush’s statement will be flabbergasted when he wittingly pushed the Burmese problem at the Security Council, just to prove that American supremacy of moral high ground and that the Russian and the Chinese are the bad guys not fit to lead the world to a better place.
Last year, ASEAN leaders were faced with the embarrassing question of whether to accept Burma’s chairmanship of the group in 2006. They broke their silence on Burma, and voiced their concern and frustration and the Americans had miserably failed to take the advantage by squeezing itself into ASEAN. How that is to be achieved still demands an answer? However, it is time that the US takes a pro-active leadership role on Burma. Washington has imposed sanctions on Burma, and has called on the world to join in lobbying for the Burma issue to be discussed by the UN Security Council. During his tour of Asia, it seems that the US President and his administration officials were trying to seek the advice of governments in the region and forge relationships with those who share Washington’s concern with events in Burma. But we cannot comprehend of why did President and his Secretary of State push the Burmese Problem at the UNSC knowing full well that it will be vetoed.
It would be insane to think that President Bush was charmed by Charm Tong, a Shan woman human rights campaigner, from SWAN by giving her forty minute longer than schedule and after listening to her true story pushed the Burmese question to the Security Council.
The people of Burma know that President Bush is very hard headed, stubborn and can construe things only from his point of view and seldom takes advice. Obviously this is the mentality of a Texas cowboy, who was destined to become a President. But if he really believes in the Devine Right theory that it is his Presidential duty to right the wrong, as in the fable of Don Quixote of mistaking the Windmill for evil giants, then he should read the Bible that the Lord created the whole world including, the Muslim (Osama bin Laden is just one), the Buddhist, the Russians, the Chinese and so on and all human being should be treated with love and sincerity including the people of Burma. Why sacrificed the noble cause of the Burmese people just to paint the picture the bear and the dragon were on the wrong side. But the die is caste.
However, it will be more plausible to think that keeping China in line as the Chinese has been helping in the North Korean problem or in the Sudan's Darfur region crisis and so on and that it is worth sacrificing the Burmese case to the Russian and Chinese for after all it is just a small country far away from America, may be his thinking. The more I think about the rationale of Bush and Rice, the more insane I became and one day if I landed in Tadagale Hospital (lunatic asylum) then should I blame it to President Bush?
Perhaps the US president can expect a warmer public welcome than he received at the Mar del Plata summit of the Americas, which was marred by rioting and protests directed at him personally. Whether he is able to achieve much more than he did in Argentina, where he was given the cold shoulder by several Latin American leaders and his push for a commitment on a trade zone was ignored, is less certain. The Argentinean episode seems typical of the way the rest of the world is edging away from Washington. Hence the treatment to the people Burma speaks a thousand words of how the great American nation, leading a Judeo Christian world, treats the suffering people an entirely a small Buddhist nation. What category of moral obligation or superiority he intends to paint we could not comprehend.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw inadvertently alluded to this trend at yet another gathering of leaders, in another part of the world – the Middle East summit in Bahrain when he said: “It would be a disaster if this region thought democracy was an American idea.” It seems now that everything associated with US foreign policy is reflexively perceived as negative.
Much of this, of course, stems from Washington’s hugely unpopular decision to invade and occupy Iraq. It wasn’t just the cost of the invasion in terms of human lives and material resources, or the fact that it was staged for reasons that turned out to be unfounded, but rather Bush’s swaggering disdain for the opinion of much of the international community that upset so many people and countries around the world including the people of Burma who now question American sincerity and good will towards them. I think that it is time for concrete and firm action to be taken, under American leadership.
China is the first external power to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and in another three years ( 2010) will be the world's largest free trade zone with 1.7 billion people, a total GDP of $2 trillion, and total trade volume exceeding $1.2 trillion. Beyond economics, Beijing has raised its leading regional profile by backing the East Asian Summit, offering to take part in joint patrols in the Malacca Straits, and repeatedly suggesting an ASEAN-China Defense Ministers meeting. What has America done?
Because of their proximity, these small- and medium-sized states of Southeast Asia even though wary of Chinese domination, many Southeast Asian leaders believe that the region suffered when China was weak and divided, and they are more optimistic about a growing, self-confident China that embraces capitalist values. While acknowledging that they cannot avoid being part of the gambit of the big powers, Southeast Asian nations share a desire not to fall within the exclusive sphere of influence of one great power. China has started to counter incumbent American strategic dominance in the region. Southeast Asians fear much because of China’s economic growth in the region, after the United States and Japan. But China has inadvertently fulfilled ASEAN's imperative of strategic diversification. ASEAN must see that the other major powers, mainly the United States, but also Japan and India, are responding to attempts to draw them into closer strategic ties and the episode of Burma at the UNSC made the regional disgusted with America. It has becomes apparent that ASEAN doesn't want to alienate the United States but desires to maximize economic and technological gains from closer relations. No state in the region would willingly choose to place all its strategic eggs in the Chinese basket. Therefore, the United States retains an extremely favorable position in Southeast Asia, even in the face of China's growing influence. As China gains economic and diplomatic weight, ASEAN also needs more high-profile U.S. activity in these areas to avoid over-dependency on China. Thus, the agreement in November 2005 to expand relations through the U.S.-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, emphasizing more trade and investment and closer cooperation against illegal drug trafficking and maritime and border security, is a welcome development beyond the boilerplate issues of counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. The idea of an annual U.S.-ASEAN Summit with the Junta representative sitting smug, floated in early 2006, is still yet to come.
The turmoil in Burma and resulting refugee problem poses a threat to regional stability and if left to fester, could spill beyond its borders. Burma is as a country of concern in respect of its government's failure to stem narcotics trafficking. In a broader sense, unchecked misrule in Burma represents a clear-cut challenge to "freedom and democracy" agenda. We believe that in the American administration a small group of thoughtful and dedicated people can change the world to a better place and pave the way to liberate Burma from the evil clutches of the Military Junta.
Kanbawza Win
Attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in South Korea, US President George W Bush publicly pledged to help restore democracy in Burma, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the Junta as “one of the worst regimes in the world.” Even though Bush’s message reaches not only the Burmese military leaders but also the Junta’s friends, collaborators, psychopaths and apologists around the region, many, however will, turn a deaf ear to this hollow messages because of the simple reason that his words does not match his actions. One wonders why the current American Administration is exercising its megaphone diplomacy.
The very fact that Bush and Rice pushed the Burmese malaise at the UN Security Council against the wishes of the State Department, who are more knowledgeable and the fact that the Chinese and the Russian ambassadors had indicated very clearly that they will cast the negative vote, proves beyond doubt that the Burmese case is worth sacrificing in order to paint the negative picture of both China and Russia. The whole concept of the Burmese people’s struggle for democracy and human rights seems just a small porn to be sacrificed at the altar of the big international chess game of power politics seems to be pictured. It seems that President Bush, living in the niceties of the West, has little comprehension of how it is to live under tyranny, even though he uttered, “The people of Burma live in the darkness of tyranny but the light of freedom shines in their hearts. They want their liberty and one day they will have it,”
While many in the region, including China and India, want to engage with Rangoon, Washington had maintained a correct and bold stance towards the repressive regime. Many a Burmese who are prisoners in their own country admiring Bush’s statement will be flabbergasted when he wittingly pushed the Burmese problem at the Security Council, just to prove that American supremacy of moral high ground and that the Russian and the Chinese are the bad guys not fit to lead the world to a better place.
Last year, ASEAN leaders were faced with the embarrassing question of whether to accept Burma’s chairmanship of the group in 2006. They broke their silence on Burma, and voiced their concern and frustration and the Americans had miserably failed to take the advantage by squeezing itself into ASEAN. How that is to be achieved still demands an answer? However, it is time that the US takes a pro-active leadership role on Burma. Washington has imposed sanctions on Burma, and has called on the world to join in lobbying for the Burma issue to be discussed by the UN Security Council. During his tour of Asia, it seems that the US President and his administration officials were trying to seek the advice of governments in the region and forge relationships with those who share Washington’s concern with events in Burma. But we cannot comprehend of why did President and his Secretary of State push the Burmese Problem at the UNSC knowing full well that it will be vetoed.
It would be insane to think that President Bush was charmed by Charm Tong, a Shan woman human rights campaigner, from SWAN by giving her forty minute longer than schedule and after listening to her true story pushed the Burmese question to the Security Council.
The people of Burma know that President Bush is very hard headed, stubborn and can construe things only from his point of view and seldom takes advice. Obviously this is the mentality of a Texas cowboy, who was destined to become a President. But if he really believes in the Devine Right theory that it is his Presidential duty to right the wrong, as in the fable of Don Quixote of mistaking the Windmill for evil giants, then he should read the Bible that the Lord created the whole world including, the Muslim (Osama bin Laden is just one), the Buddhist, the Russians, the Chinese and so on and all human being should be treated with love and sincerity including the people of Burma. Why sacrificed the noble cause of the Burmese people just to paint the picture the bear and the dragon were on the wrong side. But the die is caste.
However, it will be more plausible to think that keeping China in line as the Chinese has been helping in the North Korean problem or in the Sudan's Darfur region crisis and so on and that it is worth sacrificing the Burmese case to the Russian and Chinese for after all it is just a small country far away from America, may be his thinking. The more I think about the rationale of Bush and Rice, the more insane I became and one day if I landed in Tadagale Hospital (lunatic asylum) then should I blame it to President Bush?
Perhaps the US president can expect a warmer public welcome than he received at the Mar del Plata summit of the Americas, which was marred by rioting and protests directed at him personally. Whether he is able to achieve much more than he did in Argentina, where he was given the cold shoulder by several Latin American leaders and his push for a commitment on a trade zone was ignored, is less certain. The Argentinean episode seems typical of the way the rest of the world is edging away from Washington. Hence the treatment to the people Burma speaks a thousand words of how the great American nation, leading a Judeo Christian world, treats the suffering people an entirely a small Buddhist nation. What category of moral obligation or superiority he intends to paint we could not comprehend.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw inadvertently alluded to this trend at yet another gathering of leaders, in another part of the world – the Middle East summit in Bahrain when he said: “It would be a disaster if this region thought democracy was an American idea.” It seems now that everything associated with US foreign policy is reflexively perceived as negative.
Much of this, of course, stems from Washington’s hugely unpopular decision to invade and occupy Iraq. It wasn’t just the cost of the invasion in terms of human lives and material resources, or the fact that it was staged for reasons that turned out to be unfounded, but rather Bush’s swaggering disdain for the opinion of much of the international community that upset so many people and countries around the world including the people of Burma who now question American sincerity and good will towards them. I think that it is time for concrete and firm action to be taken, under American leadership.
China is the first external power to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and in another three years ( 2010) will be the world's largest free trade zone with 1.7 billion people, a total GDP of $2 trillion, and total trade volume exceeding $1.2 trillion. Beyond economics, Beijing has raised its leading regional profile by backing the East Asian Summit, offering to take part in joint patrols in the Malacca Straits, and repeatedly suggesting an ASEAN-China Defense Ministers meeting. What has America done?
Because of their proximity, these small- and medium-sized states of Southeast Asia even though wary of Chinese domination, many Southeast Asian leaders believe that the region suffered when China was weak and divided, and they are more optimistic about a growing, self-confident China that embraces capitalist values. While acknowledging that they cannot avoid being part of the gambit of the big powers, Southeast Asian nations share a desire not to fall within the exclusive sphere of influence of one great power. China has started to counter incumbent American strategic dominance in the region. Southeast Asians fear much because of China’s economic growth in the region, after the United States and Japan. But China has inadvertently fulfilled ASEAN's imperative of strategic diversification. ASEAN must see that the other major powers, mainly the United States, but also Japan and India, are responding to attempts to draw them into closer strategic ties and the episode of Burma at the UNSC made the regional disgusted with America. It has becomes apparent that ASEAN doesn't want to alienate the United States but desires to maximize economic and technological gains from closer relations. No state in the region would willingly choose to place all its strategic eggs in the Chinese basket. Therefore, the United States retains an extremely favorable position in Southeast Asia, even in the face of China's growing influence. As China gains economic and diplomatic weight, ASEAN also needs more high-profile U.S. activity in these areas to avoid over-dependency on China. Thus, the agreement in November 2005 to expand relations through the U.S.-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, emphasizing more trade and investment and closer cooperation against illegal drug trafficking and maritime and border security, is a welcome development beyond the boilerplate issues of counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. The idea of an annual U.S.-ASEAN Summit with the Junta representative sitting smug, floated in early 2006, is still yet to come.
The turmoil in Burma and resulting refugee problem poses a threat to regional stability and if left to fester, could spill beyond its borders. Burma is as a country of concern in respect of its government's failure to stem narcotics trafficking. In a broader sense, unchecked misrule in Burma represents a clear-cut challenge to "freedom and democracy" agenda. We believe that in the American administration a small group of thoughtful and dedicated people can change the world to a better place and pave the way to liberate Burma from the evil clutches of the Military Junta.
Blue Print for Burma
Blue Print for Burma
Kanbawza Win
No matter what religion one profess, it is undisputable that the prayers of the people of Burma have been heard and now the misery and the suffering of the Burmese will be officially accepted by the United Nations Security Council and the world at large, because it is already in the agenda by a large margin of votes. Our next move should concentrate on what resolutions will the Security Council passed? Will it achieved our cherished goal of democracy, human rights and self-determination? Surely the UN is not the Junta, even though the overwhelming margin of votes at the UNSC agenda is comparable to the overwhelming of votes that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD gets in the 1990 elections, the two negative votes by the veto wielding permanent powers cast a shadow of the Junta's mentality at the UN.
Friends of the People of Burma
The voting pattern clearly indicates, who are the friends of the people of Burma ? Not that we are out to antagonizing any one who vote against us, but it reveals their nature and inner conscience, mentality and their historical background. Obviously those with a long background of Tsars or Communist (lovingly label as dictatorship of the proletariat) or countries with its long history of killing off the heroes (Patrice Lumumba or Dak Harmjold) will vote it otherwise and one could not blame them for their business always rules their conscience.
We should concentrate and cooperate more with our friends and endeavour for a monolithic unity. Our heartfelt and sincere thanks goes to Japan, who at the last minute switch sides and throw its lot with the people of Burma , if not with the world, against the tyrannical regime. It seems that looking at the track record of the Junta the Japanese leaders are convinced that UNSC is the only place where the Junta can come to senses. The point that drives home is the fact is the mentality of those countries that voted against the inclusion of Burma , in the agenda of the UNSC, is not conducive to make this global village a happier or a holistic place and as such should not be at the helm of world leadership.
The ten countries who voted for us can be considered as the genuine friends of the people of Burma for they know how to differentiate between the people and the government of Burma and they know who are the legitimate leaders chosen by the people of Burma . Moreover they harbour the humanitarian considerations for the sufferings of the people of Burma and unlike the dictatorial regimes did not give the pretext of adhering to the principles of the big book
The Chinese Factor
The Chinese residing in every nook and corner of Burma always seems to dominate the local economy either by hook or by crook in as much as China , the only country that sells $ 1.4 billion worth of military hardware to the Burmese army. Even though it is rather hard for an average Burmese to understand their business, the Chinese domination of the Burmese economy is paramount.
Considering the superb Chinese diplomacy of being able to marginalize, the lone superpower, the United States of America, in the regional associations of ASEAN, ASEM and most importantly the defence pact of ARF, not to mention the geo strategic position vis a vis India and the American fleet in Diego Garcia, it is no wonder that the Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya, was furious and said it was "preposterous" to put a country on the Security Council's agenda because of issues of human rights, refugees, drugs and AIDS, that he construe as not affecting the regional security. I n the light of the Chinese criticism Wang noted that most countries in SEA did not consider, " the situation in Burma as being any threat to regional peace and security, " there is every possibility that the Chinese will take a hard stance.
But considering the Chinese stance on Iran , where she has invested millions of dollars and a great portion of her oil supply comes, she did not use the veto at the UNSC. Of course she tried to persuade Iran diplomatically to compromise and keep the crisis from coming up to the UN. But when Iran did not listen, she simply stays neutral letting the UN to take it course. So also with North Korea, China has fought in the Korean War and had tried her level best to convince Kim Jo Ill that his nuclear defense problem should not reach the UN but when she could not do it, China simply stays neutral. Hence if we read some of the parliamentary papers of the Iranian government they accused China and Russia to be the follower of US, while Kim Jo Ill simply accused the Chinese as unreliable friend. So also from this example is Burma worth defending by using the veto? If so what will be her image as a gracious leader of Asia if not the world?
The uncountable visits of the Burmese and Chinese dignitaries to each other country is an authentic proof that the Chinese has been silently requesting the Burmese brass to compromise with the people's representative Daw Suu and prevent the problem reaching to the UNSC. But the Generals ignore the Chinese advice and never make a meaningful move. Again the narco production on the side of Burma in the Golden Triangle is causing a lot of problems to the Chinese government who admitted that it has over one million narco addicts in China because of the Junta's indirect policy of encouraging the narco barons and its production. So from these examples and hypothesis, I have great reservations of China using the veto, if the UN would ever decided to wield a big stick on these naughty and nutty Generals?
The United Nations
Burma is not at the top of anyone's agenda in the Security Council as the UNSC is beset with several others more important international affairs (to be exact 143 crisis in the agenda), but it offers the United Nations, a chance to show that it can deal with a threat to global security before it explodes onto the front page. Surely, Burma is not engaging in nuclear blackmail, and it has not attacked a neighboring country. But its malevolent dictatorship does represent a threat to peace. Its depredations at home such as mass rapes, enforced child labor, burning of farms and villages, push masses of refugees across its borders. Its economic failures make it a locus of AIDS and other diseases. Its corruption makes it a leading source of illegal drugs. And its population of 50 million plus suffers under a regime whose repression has set up the world record.
In the face of this anguish, the beleaguered democrats of Southeast Asian nations are convinced that only the Security Council can put the stop to their misery on its agenda. We are not expecting the U.N.-mandated sanctions, let alone peacekeepers or intervention -- only some attention from the UN and the international body that promised, not so long ago, not to let notions of national sovereignty keep it from standing up for human rights.
It seems that the Security Council needs to adopt a resolution calling for the release of the one and only Nobel laureate and pro democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the release of all political prisoners; for a process of national reconciliation with the democrats and ethnic leaders at the table; for U.N. and other international aid to flow directly to Burma's most vulnerable people, not through the corrupt bureaucracy; and for the UN to report back regularly on progress made on all these points. The United Nations would enhance its own stature by associating itself with Burma 's nonviolent democrats and ethnic leaders.
The Burmese case has come up to the UN General Assembly several times for more than a decade and several resolutions have been passed with no effect on the Generals, who not only laugh at these resolutions but did not give a damn thing about it. They viewed it as nothing but a debating society. The Junta has swindle the UN, Secretary Generals' representative Razali Ismail, and have banned Professor Paulo Sergio Pinhiero, UN Human Rights Special Reporteur. Now all these has come to a climax and it has reached a point where it no longer ignore the UN. The very fact that it has come to the Security Council indicates that the term either or has arrived and the Junta's version of neither nor has ended.
If every man is for himself, then the logical conclusion is that every country is for itself, including our big gracious neighbors, China and India . The ASEAN countries with its grandiose Constructive Engagement Policy has paid a dear price and are silently gloating that the UN has come to the rescue, even though individual countries tries its level best to exploit Burma' vast natural and human resources.
India , which loves to be surrounded by dictatorial countries, as she has made it clear that it is not in her interest to promote democracy in Burma , now will have to think twice when the Security Council takes the matter into its hands. The biggest democratic country in the world can no longer exploit the people of its biggest neighbor. Other than the Western countries led by the US , the barometer that will decide the fate of Burma in the Security Council is self-interest.
Danger of the Extremists
Even though Burma was brought up at the Security Council, the fate of Burma will have to be decided by the people of Burma themselves and not by the United Nations or by any foreign power. This is an undeniable and undisputable fact. The Security Council is just giving a push to the cart, which will have to roll down hill in its own steam. In the struggle against the Burmese military dictatorship there are two groups, the pro democracy and the autonomy groups and though the majority, see eye to eye there are several extremists on both sides of the groups that could easily hijacked the good and noble cause and play havoc.
The most prominent in the pro democracy group are the Myanmar Chauvinist, who put out the theory that the struggle for democracy is more important than the problem of the ethnic nationalities. Their aim is to sideline, if not to marginalize the ethnic nationalities and goes back to the pre 1962 era, where both the government and the people could crush the ethnic aspirations and pretend that Burma is a monolithic whole. In other words these Myanmar Chauvinist want to practice the tyranny of the majority as in the democratic days of 1948 to 62.
This category of people seems to forget of why the army was able to make a successful military coup in 1962. If the military does not come to power, then there will be no struggle for democracy? There may be several justifications but the main cause is that the civilian government could not solve the ethnic problem. Hence the military came to power with the slogan that it has unwilling taken over power because the Union was about to fall into the deep abyss. This is the crux of the Burmese problem. Until and unless we can solve the ethnic problem, the Burmese crisis will crop up again and again, with a vicious cycle. There must be some sort of Concordat, Federal or whatever to meet the aspirations of the ethnic nationalities on the lines of the Panglong Conference, if we want to solve the problem of Burma from its root cause.
But there are many Myanmar who shares their aspirations with the non-Myanmar, now that they have fought shoulder to shoulder with their ethnic brothers against the common enemy. They have also bitterly tasted the soup of what it is to be a minority living in a foreign land where the language, culture, values and climate is not the same. They are slowly building together in the real spirit of Pyidaungsu, which we hope will be the foundation stone of the real genuine Federal Union of Burma and not the Union of Myanmar with a chauvinist tone, which is both politically and phonetically wrong (the word Myanmar, r is extra and should be Myanma pronounced softly as the word, Mother in English).
The second type of extremist is the racist attitude harbor among the ethnic nationalities, they have their dreams and aspiration to the British colonial days when they have their own territory and governed as their conscience may dictates and fancies may please. This is because the British has given them a free hand in the internal administrations to acquire their allegiance. These racist leaders are unwittingly or indirectly encouraging the Burmese army version of Balkanization and that the army is the only institution that can maintain the country together. We must realize that it was with this version of Balkanization that the Junta got the support from its neighboring giants of China and India not to mention the ASEAN countries that have more ethnic minorities than ours. These neighboring countries are really afraid that the ethnic cauldron would ever spill into their country. No wonder their practice the Constructive Engagement Policy since 1988.
In short there are several lessons to be learnt and now with the putting of the Burma in the Security Council, it is time to reflect our ways. This is the golden chance to grab it or leave it as it will come only in a lifetime. Everybody seems to sense that by throwing their lot with the ethno-democratic forces they could overcome this formidable evil force.
Wavering Leadership
" Like Father like Son(Daughter) ", Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the only person where all the people of Burma , including the ethnic nationalities trust. Whether we like it or not, it is to be admitted that by arresting her incommunicado, the Junta was able to score a major point over the opposition both the democracy and the ethnic groups as there was not personality of her status to command allegiance.
Roughly, the pro democracy groups in Diaspora are under the umbrella of the UB group and the ethnic under the umbrella of EN groups. The leaders in the peripherals of Burma and those residing in the West often waver and lack vision. In order for the Burmese people to ‘ know what they don't know' – know what is being kept a secret' , it is time to make a post mortem of our struggles with the aim of restoring confidence in our selected leaders that were weak all these one and half dozen years. Though we wish to avoid “witch-hunt” atmosphere, attempting to assign blame to a wide range of groups and organizations, we are reluctant of “naming names” it is time for them to mend their ways and take a more responsible task.
We want dynamic, vigorous and resolute leaders and there is no place for those who have a faint heart and wavers, arguing that putting up the UNSC is impossible as even now there are hypothesis that China and Russia will used the veto and so on. Knowing full well that the Junta's days are numbered, many of the so called people on our sides, not only from the native Burmese but also some farangs, the so called Burmese sympathizers, especially those who have enthusiastically attended the Wilton Park Conference want to soften us.
We will have to set up a system to hold people accountable, for what they have done and without making basic reforms or structural changes, that could prevent future failures, we will not succeed even if the UN is behind us. This basic principle of establishing accountability and responsibility for public servants is essential to a working democracy for demotions, terminations and even recall are part of the democratic traditions. Unless people and groups are held accountable for their actions and inactions, they have no incentive to change and no cause to put the public interest first. All groups serve at the behest of the people, and it is a sacred trust.
(a) Transparency and Accountability t o day in the resistance groups, the basic inquiries into lines of duty, administrative responsibility, organizational restructuring, disciplinary actions, courts of inquiry, performance review, legal actions, or even courts martial have not been visibly activated, which are essential for the success of our noble cause. Accountability is not irrational blame or the search for a scapegoat, it should be a regular and open process of evaluation, reassessment and change. Understandably the primary accountability rest with the top leaders, but there is an additional accountability that must be considered and investigated on the executives who failed, despite numerous warnings and preparations against such failures to perform in ways consistent with their effective responses in the past and their standard emergency procedures.
Lamentably only a handful of officials and administrators have had the decency to date to acknowledge their accountability or to apologize for their shortcomings or failures. There are several people who wish to keep their secrets in their Pandora's box. We want an honest response or to shed light on the critical information necessary for public understanding and the will to change to attain our goal. In this way we can prove that our democracy works as one.
(b) Unanswered and unasked questions As an ethno democratic forces a mass movement that continue to work in the peripherals of Burma and in the West there are bound to be several omissions and contradictions. The blood of our compatriots flowed in 1988, if not earlier are now silently calling us and asking questions of how do we react and respond to this golden chance of putting the problem in the UNSC ? As the people of Burma , even if we are ashamed will have to admit bravely that we cannot solve our own problem and this crisis will have to be solved with the help of the world community, the UN.
The mass deserves reasonable and credible explanations for the failures of both the democratic and ethnic leaders, just to draw lessons and not to repeat the mistakes again. The UN Security Council is the ideal place to present ourselves as well as that of the Junta. Let's use this opportunity to inform the world that we seek to honor the victims by pursuing the truth and calling for justice. It has been 18 years, too long for truth and justice. We must do all we can to make this world known the agenda and true motives of the Burmese Army ( Tatmadaw ). We owe it to those killed, to those victims of rape, of forced labor, forced relocation for their families, and ourselves. We want to be seen as respectful, concerned people of the Federal Union of Burma. We don't seek for negative confrontation, we make every effort to diffuse the situation by dialogue and we contribute to our presence being an extension of the work of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
No Place for the Tatmadaw
There are several people who either, want to have a finger in the pie and have no inkling to take out the root cause, by drawing the conclusion that the Tatmadaw is indispensable and must be one of the components of negotiations. This category of people seems to believe the exaggerated notion that the Burmese army is the sole savior of the country in gaining independence. This myth inevitably lends a helping hand to the Tatmadaw , who wants to have a grip on the state power, in perpetuity.
The excesses of ragtag riffraff BIA coming into Burma, under the protective custody of Imperial Japanese army, was the root cause of the Karen insurrections with a snowball effect. When Rangoon was about to fall to the Karen rebels in the late forties, it was the Chin and the Kachin army that saves Rangoon . The ethnic army of first Shan, together with the other ethnic brothers save the Union from the Burma Communist Party, an undisputable facts that the ethnic people really loves the Union . Hence, why was Contemporary History of Burma twisted? Is it for Burmanization (Maha Bama)? In the Japanese records there was no such thing as the Burmese resistance or the Burmese army in the 2 nd World War, let alone the Army Day (Resistance Day) which falls on 27 th March when the allies and the British Burma Army has already occupied Mandalay, and the whole of upper Burma. Some Japanese army commanders admitted that more soldiers were killed in Karenni state than in the whole campaign in Burma , which clearly indicates that the Karennis fought tooth and nail more than the rag tag Burmese army.
In fact, the original Burmese army composed of two components since its inception, the BIA(BDA,BNA,PBF) and the British Burma army composed of the Chindit, the Karen and most of the ethnic forces. It was amalgamation of these two, that became the Burmese Army, Tatamadaw with General Smith Dun as the supreme commander and Ne Win from the BIA as his assistant. It was by cunning and trickery, with the approval of U Nu that Ne Win replaced him and his professional lieutenants such as Air Commando Saw Shisho Tun, and many ethnic Brigadiers. Maha Bama idea has started since then.
General Aung San who is the founder of the Burmese army had set the example when he resigned from the armed forces to compete in elections and does not compete as a representative of Tatmadaw . Hence historically the Tatamadaw has no place in the making of future Federal Union of Burma.
The second aspect is that the majority, if not every university student starting from 1959 Ava Hall crisis (the army tank destroyed the gates of Ava hall in order to access to the students holed up in the hall) up to this day including the 8888 generation vehemently hated the Burmese army. The Tatmadaw is the ones that destroyed the educations system and the country. Every time there was a crisis they always killed off a number of students. The generations from 1959 up to the 8888 and to day are now the ones that are residing in and outside of Burma that does not look kindly to the Tatamadaw . This explicitly means that as long as the Tatmadaw is there the animosity and the antagonism will goes on and on between the generations of students and the Tatamadaw ..
The third aspect is that there must be no single entity that can wield the power of the gun, to eliminate the threat of a military coup. If it is a genuine federal union there must be the province armed forces just like in the old days when we have Karen Rifles, 1 st to 4 th Chin, 1 st to 4 th Kachin, 1 st Shan, Kayah Yae and so on to protect their own State and Divisions and of course in place of the Tatmadaw there must be a Pyidaungsu Tat (Union army) conscripted from all the ethnic and Myanmar forces, to defend the country from outside encroachment. Only then there will be a check and balance system. If any particular army be they Myanmar or ethnic make an attempt to seize power by force, then the rest can come and defend the Union ( Pyidaungsu ), as it had done in the late 40s and early 50s.
The fourth aspect is the unwritten philosophy of the Tatmadaw that " We alone are can do it." must be uprooted once and for all for the sake of the genuine Federal Union, Pyidaungsu. This endorse the argument that only the Tatmadaw is patriotic and that that rest are parasites that does not have a pale of patriotism. What an unbelievable and paradoxical phrases as the " Tatmadaw is our father and mother are posted throughout the length and breath of the country and forcing the people to believe, when in fact it is a rapist army, committing unaccountable human rights violations with impunity. Tatmadaw has no regards except the lip service for Pyidaungsu .
The fact that they want to have 25% of the administrative power in the new administrative structure reveals that Tatmadaw is a power maniacs. The evil Tatmadaw, with the connotations of the Burmese word, Taw (such as Naing Gan Taw ) depicting a Myanmar empire, if not a chauvinist tone over the ethnic nationalities treating them these ethnic nationalities as if the were the second citizen will have to be eliminated for real peace and genuine Pyidaungsu .
The fifth, and most crucial aspect is that the Burmese army is not sincere and has no love and cetena to the people of Burma . This can be easily comparable to with the latest Thai military coup where General Sonthi Boonyaratglin declared that he will be the interim Prime Minister just for a fortnight and that democracy will return to Thailand within a year, a time line, which the Burmese Generals dared not contemplate. Unlike the Burmese Generals it won't take a decade to draw up the new constitution but would be completed within a year. Unlike Burma , Thailand ' s latest coup has the full support of the people. However the most conspicuous aspect is that. Tatmadaw is sorely afraid that the people of Burma will be happy and prosperous e.g. when it came to power in 1988 after killing thousands of peaceful demonstrators they opened up the country economically and of course the investors rush in thinking that it was a genuine market economy and the middle class prosper for a couple of years. Tatmadaw knows that with the rise of the middle class the country will be inching towards democracy because it is a matter of time that this middle class will have a say in politics and so it at once reverse the trend, chasing the investors out of the country and destroying the middle class with the result that the country has now became poor at the bottom of the world's ladder. What more Tamadaw, is still not satisfied and is hindering the works of the NGOs who has come into the country with a sincere heart to help the down trodden and marginalized people. On the whole Tatmadaw has a cruel heart, to look on the suffering of the people but not the world community and when these well meaning NGOs came in they prevent them. They even indirectly forced out the Global Fund and will not let the International Red Cross to come in again. Are we going to give this Tatmadaw a role, which continues to harbor such mentality? In short if one were to solve the Burmese problem from its root this pugnacious Tatmadaw has no place.
Tamadaw Response
Now that Burma is in the agenda of the Security Council, let us examine the response of the Tatmadaw from it headquarters in Kyat Pyae. It simply says that there will be no change, what ever of its policies and will carry out its policies unswervingly. " Under no circumstances will it change these policies just because of pressure, coercion and sanctions ," said a five-page- long statement. The statement criticized the United States for using the United Nations. Of course the continue to lie the very concept of truth by declaring that there are no political prisoners and only criminals and felons and terrorists are in jail Concerning Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, she was restricted at home for:-
" constantly demanding confrontation, defiance of all orders, utter devastation, resorting to four kinds of sanctions and reliance on external elements all of which will lead to harming the national unity, national stability and national development as well as hindering democratization process . ."
The irony is that all these 16 years she was never brought to court to face her charges even according to their white lie, it seems that the Tatmadaw cannot even lie logically and scientifically.
Regarding the refugee issue, those residing at the so-called refugee camps in the other country are not genuine refugees but insurgents and their relatives and will not be accepted. The country is now stable, peaceful and tranquil with the prevalence of rule of law and order and development. Regarding the drug issue it is absolutely groundless and that poppy cultivation has decreased. The statement read that the spread of three diseases of HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria to neighboring countries are merely an exaggeration. It finally warned the UN that no encroachment on national sovereignty will be accepted.
The Tatmadaw has taken a hard line stance indicating that there will be no compromise with the United Nations and will fight to the end. Of course they are not empty threats, now it has 17,000 Kamikaze type child soldiers imbued with the spirit of supreme sacrifice. Like Mois Tsombe of Congo , will declared War on the UN and the world and die fighting. In such a scenario, how do we respond?
Prepared for the Worst .
Putting Burma in the agenda of the UN Security, (some interpreted as a major victory) is just a feeble step in the right direction, and the ethno democratic forces could not stay complacent but will have to work for it very hard. Let us recollect our beloved Bogyoke Aung San's words before going to London for the Aung San-Attle Agreement of hoping and praying for the best but at the same time preparing for the worst.
This feat will also depend on the outcome of the UNSC. Sanctions have not worked as both China and India including Thailand can easily beat the sanctions. To decide a drastic resolution such as sending troops to enforce the Security Council's resolutions will be met with the veto from China or Russia (read how the Junta eulogize and rely on these two countries as he is now in desperate position). It should be something in between the two extremes, so that both these two dictatorial veto power countries will not use the veto. The US clearly sees this trend and we are positive that our friends at the UNSC would push for it. If it comes to the resolution, something like to settle between the people of Burma themselves, with the backing of the UN, then it is time for the ethno-democratic forces to prepare drastic actions, at least psychologically.
The UNGA has earlier called for a tripartite dialogue (ethnic nationalities, democracy movement and the Junta) and we will have to strive for it. All the ethnic and democratic fighting forces augmented by the Diaspora communities will have to join hands, under a single command and with the backing and funding of the UN in terms of hardware (arms, air and sea cover) will have to fight the Burmese version of the Armageddon. This time it will be the real Pyidaungsu Tat that will speak the Tatmadaw on equal terms, in their own language. Let us move according to the UN agenda curbing our own extremist. Then and only then we will see who will resolutely fight on the Junta's side, on which side the people of Burma will be? On our side it is also going to be a test for those individual and groups of whether they love the country by the lips or by the heart. If we cannot achieve that then there is every, likelihood that Burma will be the Yugoslavia of the East.
But hopefully, the Junta will not reached that point and accepts gracefully of Gambari visit and a sort of a compromise to release Daw Suu and all the political prisoners will be reached. We hope and pray that the Burmese problem will be solved peacefully without bloodshed. If the Myanmar and the non Myanmar cannot come to an agreement, the ethnic nationalities should really think of forming the Union of Nationalities without the Myanmar .
But let us set things right among us by preparing the necessary aspects. Personally may I appeal to the Burmese intelligentsia especially the academics of Social Sciences in Diaspora to come to our rescue and help prepare for this coming Herculean task. The accusation that the academics know it from the beginning and stay mute just to save their skin must be eliminated once and for all.
Way back in 1992, when I was serving at Chulalongkong University as the Press Secretary of the ACRP (Asian Conference on Religion and Peace), I put up a paper titled " A Burmese Appeal to the UN and US " at that time President Clinton and Butros Ghali urging the UN to take up the Burmese case. It was put up through our head office of the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) at the UN building. This was later printed into a book and distributed among the resistance groups. In it I clearly outlined the role of the UN and that Burma 's case must be put up to the Security Council. I also send this paper to the UB group, since I acknowledge that we should fought under their umbrella. But on reading it they were hilarious about it, saying that I was a bit insane. Now the vision, which I visualize some dozen years ago, has come to fruition.
The point is we need a visionary leader who must be vigorous and dynamic that can correlate the conditions inside Burma ( NLD and the Tatmadaw ), the Diaspora (peripheral ethnic forces and the overseas Burmese) and of course with international communities (the UN, the West and the dictatorial countries) and then decipher the best way to achieve our cherished goal, which has come a bit closer. We need to reinforce the existing institutions with farsighted intelligentsia. Now is the time for t here will be no medium way either we do or die.
Kanbawza Win
No matter what religion one profess, it is undisputable that the prayers of the people of Burma have been heard and now the misery and the suffering of the Burmese will be officially accepted by the United Nations Security Council and the world at large, because it is already in the agenda by a large margin of votes. Our next move should concentrate on what resolutions will the Security Council passed? Will it achieved our cherished goal of democracy, human rights and self-determination? Surely the UN is not the Junta, even though the overwhelming margin of votes at the UNSC agenda is comparable to the overwhelming of votes that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD gets in the 1990 elections, the two negative votes by the veto wielding permanent powers cast a shadow of the Junta's mentality at the UN.
Friends of the People of Burma
The voting pattern clearly indicates, who are the friends of the people of Burma ? Not that we are out to antagonizing any one who vote against us, but it reveals their nature and inner conscience, mentality and their historical background. Obviously those with a long background of Tsars or Communist (lovingly label as dictatorship of the proletariat) or countries with its long history of killing off the heroes (Patrice Lumumba or Dak Harmjold) will vote it otherwise and one could not blame them for their business always rules their conscience.
We should concentrate and cooperate more with our friends and endeavour for a monolithic unity. Our heartfelt and sincere thanks goes to Japan, who at the last minute switch sides and throw its lot with the people of Burma , if not with the world, against the tyrannical regime. It seems that looking at the track record of the Junta the Japanese leaders are convinced that UNSC is the only place where the Junta can come to senses. The point that drives home is the fact is the mentality of those countries that voted against the inclusion of Burma , in the agenda of the UNSC, is not conducive to make this global village a happier or a holistic place and as such should not be at the helm of world leadership.
The ten countries who voted for us can be considered as the genuine friends of the people of Burma for they know how to differentiate between the people and the government of Burma and they know who are the legitimate leaders chosen by the people of Burma . Moreover they harbour the humanitarian considerations for the sufferings of the people of Burma and unlike the dictatorial regimes did not give the pretext of adhering to the principles of the big book
The Chinese Factor
The Chinese residing in every nook and corner of Burma always seems to dominate the local economy either by hook or by crook in as much as China , the only country that sells $ 1.4 billion worth of military hardware to the Burmese army. Even though it is rather hard for an average Burmese to understand their business, the Chinese domination of the Burmese economy is paramount.
Considering the superb Chinese diplomacy of being able to marginalize, the lone superpower, the United States of America, in the regional associations of ASEAN, ASEM and most importantly the defence pact of ARF, not to mention the geo strategic position vis a vis India and the American fleet in Diego Garcia, it is no wonder that the Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya, was furious and said it was "preposterous" to put a country on the Security Council's agenda because of issues of human rights, refugees, drugs and AIDS, that he construe as not affecting the regional security. I n the light of the Chinese criticism Wang noted that most countries in SEA did not consider, " the situation in Burma as being any threat to regional peace and security, " there is every possibility that the Chinese will take a hard stance.
But considering the Chinese stance on Iran , where she has invested millions of dollars and a great portion of her oil supply comes, she did not use the veto at the UNSC. Of course she tried to persuade Iran diplomatically to compromise and keep the crisis from coming up to the UN. But when Iran did not listen, she simply stays neutral letting the UN to take it course. So also with North Korea, China has fought in the Korean War and had tried her level best to convince Kim Jo Ill that his nuclear defense problem should not reach the UN but when she could not do it, China simply stays neutral. Hence if we read some of the parliamentary papers of the Iranian government they accused China and Russia to be the follower of US, while Kim Jo Ill simply accused the Chinese as unreliable friend. So also from this example is Burma worth defending by using the veto? If so what will be her image as a gracious leader of Asia if not the world?
The uncountable visits of the Burmese and Chinese dignitaries to each other country is an authentic proof that the Chinese has been silently requesting the Burmese brass to compromise with the people's representative Daw Suu and prevent the problem reaching to the UNSC. But the Generals ignore the Chinese advice and never make a meaningful move. Again the narco production on the side of Burma in the Golden Triangle is causing a lot of problems to the Chinese government who admitted that it has over one million narco addicts in China because of the Junta's indirect policy of encouraging the narco barons and its production. So from these examples and hypothesis, I have great reservations of China using the veto, if the UN would ever decided to wield a big stick on these naughty and nutty Generals?
The United Nations
Burma is not at the top of anyone's agenda in the Security Council as the UNSC is beset with several others more important international affairs (to be exact 143 crisis in the agenda), but it offers the United Nations, a chance to show that it can deal with a threat to global security before it explodes onto the front page. Surely, Burma is not engaging in nuclear blackmail, and it has not attacked a neighboring country. But its malevolent dictatorship does represent a threat to peace. Its depredations at home such as mass rapes, enforced child labor, burning of farms and villages, push masses of refugees across its borders. Its economic failures make it a locus of AIDS and other diseases. Its corruption makes it a leading source of illegal drugs. And its population of 50 million plus suffers under a regime whose repression has set up the world record.
In the face of this anguish, the beleaguered democrats of Southeast Asian nations are convinced that only the Security Council can put the stop to their misery on its agenda. We are not expecting the U.N.-mandated sanctions, let alone peacekeepers or intervention -- only some attention from the UN and the international body that promised, not so long ago, not to let notions of national sovereignty keep it from standing up for human rights.
It seems that the Security Council needs to adopt a resolution calling for the release of the one and only Nobel laureate and pro democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the release of all political prisoners; for a process of national reconciliation with the democrats and ethnic leaders at the table; for U.N. and other international aid to flow directly to Burma's most vulnerable people, not through the corrupt bureaucracy; and for the UN to report back regularly on progress made on all these points. The United Nations would enhance its own stature by associating itself with Burma 's nonviolent democrats and ethnic leaders.
The Burmese case has come up to the UN General Assembly several times for more than a decade and several resolutions have been passed with no effect on the Generals, who not only laugh at these resolutions but did not give a damn thing about it. They viewed it as nothing but a debating society. The Junta has swindle the UN, Secretary Generals' representative Razali Ismail, and have banned Professor Paulo Sergio Pinhiero, UN Human Rights Special Reporteur. Now all these has come to a climax and it has reached a point where it no longer ignore the UN. The very fact that it has come to the Security Council indicates that the term either or has arrived and the Junta's version of neither nor has ended.
If every man is for himself, then the logical conclusion is that every country is for itself, including our big gracious neighbors, China and India . The ASEAN countries with its grandiose Constructive Engagement Policy has paid a dear price and are silently gloating that the UN has come to the rescue, even though individual countries tries its level best to exploit Burma' vast natural and human resources.
India , which loves to be surrounded by dictatorial countries, as she has made it clear that it is not in her interest to promote democracy in Burma , now will have to think twice when the Security Council takes the matter into its hands. The biggest democratic country in the world can no longer exploit the people of its biggest neighbor. Other than the Western countries led by the US , the barometer that will decide the fate of Burma in the Security Council is self-interest.
Danger of the Extremists
Even though Burma was brought up at the Security Council, the fate of Burma will have to be decided by the people of Burma themselves and not by the United Nations or by any foreign power. This is an undeniable and undisputable fact. The Security Council is just giving a push to the cart, which will have to roll down hill in its own steam. In the struggle against the Burmese military dictatorship there are two groups, the pro democracy and the autonomy groups and though the majority, see eye to eye there are several extremists on both sides of the groups that could easily hijacked the good and noble cause and play havoc.
The most prominent in the pro democracy group are the Myanmar Chauvinist, who put out the theory that the struggle for democracy is more important than the problem of the ethnic nationalities. Their aim is to sideline, if not to marginalize the ethnic nationalities and goes back to the pre 1962 era, where both the government and the people could crush the ethnic aspirations and pretend that Burma is a monolithic whole. In other words these Myanmar Chauvinist want to practice the tyranny of the majority as in the democratic days of 1948 to 62.
This category of people seems to forget of why the army was able to make a successful military coup in 1962. If the military does not come to power, then there will be no struggle for democracy? There may be several justifications but the main cause is that the civilian government could not solve the ethnic problem. Hence the military came to power with the slogan that it has unwilling taken over power because the Union was about to fall into the deep abyss. This is the crux of the Burmese problem. Until and unless we can solve the ethnic problem, the Burmese crisis will crop up again and again, with a vicious cycle. There must be some sort of Concordat, Federal or whatever to meet the aspirations of the ethnic nationalities on the lines of the Panglong Conference, if we want to solve the problem of Burma from its root cause.
But there are many Myanmar who shares their aspirations with the non-Myanmar, now that they have fought shoulder to shoulder with their ethnic brothers against the common enemy. They have also bitterly tasted the soup of what it is to be a minority living in a foreign land where the language, culture, values and climate is not the same. They are slowly building together in the real spirit of Pyidaungsu, which we hope will be the foundation stone of the real genuine Federal Union of Burma and not the Union of Myanmar with a chauvinist tone, which is both politically and phonetically wrong (the word Myanmar, r is extra and should be Myanma pronounced softly as the word, Mother in English).
The second type of extremist is the racist attitude harbor among the ethnic nationalities, they have their dreams and aspiration to the British colonial days when they have their own territory and governed as their conscience may dictates and fancies may please. This is because the British has given them a free hand in the internal administrations to acquire their allegiance. These racist leaders are unwittingly or indirectly encouraging the Burmese army version of Balkanization and that the army is the only institution that can maintain the country together. We must realize that it was with this version of Balkanization that the Junta got the support from its neighboring giants of China and India not to mention the ASEAN countries that have more ethnic minorities than ours. These neighboring countries are really afraid that the ethnic cauldron would ever spill into their country. No wonder their practice the Constructive Engagement Policy since 1988.
In short there are several lessons to be learnt and now with the putting of the Burma in the Security Council, it is time to reflect our ways. This is the golden chance to grab it or leave it as it will come only in a lifetime. Everybody seems to sense that by throwing their lot with the ethno-democratic forces they could overcome this formidable evil force.
Wavering Leadership
" Like Father like Son(Daughter) ", Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the only person where all the people of Burma , including the ethnic nationalities trust. Whether we like it or not, it is to be admitted that by arresting her incommunicado, the Junta was able to score a major point over the opposition both the democracy and the ethnic groups as there was not personality of her status to command allegiance.
Roughly, the pro democracy groups in Diaspora are under the umbrella of the UB group and the ethnic under the umbrella of EN groups. The leaders in the peripherals of Burma and those residing in the West often waver and lack vision. In order for the Burmese people to ‘ know what they don't know' – know what is being kept a secret' , it is time to make a post mortem of our struggles with the aim of restoring confidence in our selected leaders that were weak all these one and half dozen years. Though we wish to avoid “witch-hunt” atmosphere, attempting to assign blame to a wide range of groups and organizations, we are reluctant of “naming names” it is time for them to mend their ways and take a more responsible task.
We want dynamic, vigorous and resolute leaders and there is no place for those who have a faint heart and wavers, arguing that putting up the UNSC is impossible as even now there are hypothesis that China and Russia will used the veto and so on. Knowing full well that the Junta's days are numbered, many of the so called people on our sides, not only from the native Burmese but also some farangs, the so called Burmese sympathizers, especially those who have enthusiastically attended the Wilton Park Conference want to soften us.
We will have to set up a system to hold people accountable, for what they have done and without making basic reforms or structural changes, that could prevent future failures, we will not succeed even if the UN is behind us. This basic principle of establishing accountability and responsibility for public servants is essential to a working democracy for demotions, terminations and even recall are part of the democratic traditions. Unless people and groups are held accountable for their actions and inactions, they have no incentive to change and no cause to put the public interest first. All groups serve at the behest of the people, and it is a sacred trust.
(a) Transparency and Accountability t o day in the resistance groups, the basic inquiries into lines of duty, administrative responsibility, organizational restructuring, disciplinary actions, courts of inquiry, performance review, legal actions, or even courts martial have not been visibly activated, which are essential for the success of our noble cause. Accountability is not irrational blame or the search for a scapegoat, it should be a regular and open process of evaluation, reassessment and change. Understandably the primary accountability rest with the top leaders, but there is an additional accountability that must be considered and investigated on the executives who failed, despite numerous warnings and preparations against such failures to perform in ways consistent with their effective responses in the past and their standard emergency procedures.
Lamentably only a handful of officials and administrators have had the decency to date to acknowledge their accountability or to apologize for their shortcomings or failures. There are several people who wish to keep their secrets in their Pandora's box. We want an honest response or to shed light on the critical information necessary for public understanding and the will to change to attain our goal. In this way we can prove that our democracy works as one.
(b) Unanswered and unasked questions As an ethno democratic forces a mass movement that continue to work in the peripherals of Burma and in the West there are bound to be several omissions and contradictions. The blood of our compatriots flowed in 1988, if not earlier are now silently calling us and asking questions of how do we react and respond to this golden chance of putting the problem in the UNSC ? As the people of Burma , even if we are ashamed will have to admit bravely that we cannot solve our own problem and this crisis will have to be solved with the help of the world community, the UN.
The mass deserves reasonable and credible explanations for the failures of both the democratic and ethnic leaders, just to draw lessons and not to repeat the mistakes again. The UN Security Council is the ideal place to present ourselves as well as that of the Junta. Let's use this opportunity to inform the world that we seek to honor the victims by pursuing the truth and calling for justice. It has been 18 years, too long for truth and justice. We must do all we can to make this world known the agenda and true motives of the Burmese Army ( Tatmadaw ). We owe it to those killed, to those victims of rape, of forced labor, forced relocation for their families, and ourselves. We want to be seen as respectful, concerned people of the Federal Union of Burma. We don't seek for negative confrontation, we make every effort to diffuse the situation by dialogue and we contribute to our presence being an extension of the work of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
No Place for the Tatmadaw
There are several people who either, want to have a finger in the pie and have no inkling to take out the root cause, by drawing the conclusion that the Tatmadaw is indispensable and must be one of the components of negotiations. This category of people seems to believe the exaggerated notion that the Burmese army is the sole savior of the country in gaining independence. This myth inevitably lends a helping hand to the Tatmadaw , who wants to have a grip on the state power, in perpetuity.
The excesses of ragtag riffraff BIA coming into Burma, under the protective custody of Imperial Japanese army, was the root cause of the Karen insurrections with a snowball effect. When Rangoon was about to fall to the Karen rebels in the late forties, it was the Chin and the Kachin army that saves Rangoon . The ethnic army of first Shan, together with the other ethnic brothers save the Union from the Burma Communist Party, an undisputable facts that the ethnic people really loves the Union . Hence, why was Contemporary History of Burma twisted? Is it for Burmanization (Maha Bama)? In the Japanese records there was no such thing as the Burmese resistance or the Burmese army in the 2 nd World War, let alone the Army Day (Resistance Day) which falls on 27 th March when the allies and the British Burma Army has already occupied Mandalay, and the whole of upper Burma. Some Japanese army commanders admitted that more soldiers were killed in Karenni state than in the whole campaign in Burma , which clearly indicates that the Karennis fought tooth and nail more than the rag tag Burmese army.
In fact, the original Burmese army composed of two components since its inception, the BIA(BDA,BNA,PBF) and the British Burma army composed of the Chindit, the Karen and most of the ethnic forces. It was amalgamation of these two, that became the Burmese Army, Tatamadaw with General Smith Dun as the supreme commander and Ne Win from the BIA as his assistant. It was by cunning and trickery, with the approval of U Nu that Ne Win replaced him and his professional lieutenants such as Air Commando Saw Shisho Tun, and many ethnic Brigadiers. Maha Bama idea has started since then.
General Aung San who is the founder of the Burmese army had set the example when he resigned from the armed forces to compete in elections and does not compete as a representative of Tatmadaw . Hence historically the Tatamadaw has no place in the making of future Federal Union of Burma.
The second aspect is that the majority, if not every university student starting from 1959 Ava Hall crisis (the army tank destroyed the gates of Ava hall in order to access to the students holed up in the hall) up to this day including the 8888 generation vehemently hated the Burmese army. The Tatmadaw is the ones that destroyed the educations system and the country. Every time there was a crisis they always killed off a number of students. The generations from 1959 up to the 8888 and to day are now the ones that are residing in and outside of Burma that does not look kindly to the Tatamadaw . This explicitly means that as long as the Tatmadaw is there the animosity and the antagonism will goes on and on between the generations of students and the Tatamadaw ..
The third aspect is that there must be no single entity that can wield the power of the gun, to eliminate the threat of a military coup. If it is a genuine federal union there must be the province armed forces just like in the old days when we have Karen Rifles, 1 st to 4 th Chin, 1 st to 4 th Kachin, 1 st Shan, Kayah Yae and so on to protect their own State and Divisions and of course in place of the Tatmadaw there must be a Pyidaungsu Tat (Union army) conscripted from all the ethnic and Myanmar forces, to defend the country from outside encroachment. Only then there will be a check and balance system. If any particular army be they Myanmar or ethnic make an attempt to seize power by force, then the rest can come and defend the Union ( Pyidaungsu ), as it had done in the late 40s and early 50s.
The fourth aspect is the unwritten philosophy of the Tatmadaw that " We alone are can do it." must be uprooted once and for all for the sake of the genuine Federal Union, Pyidaungsu. This endorse the argument that only the Tatmadaw is patriotic and that that rest are parasites that does not have a pale of patriotism. What an unbelievable and paradoxical phrases as the " Tatmadaw is our father and mother are posted throughout the length and breath of the country and forcing the people to believe, when in fact it is a rapist army, committing unaccountable human rights violations with impunity. Tatmadaw has no regards except the lip service for Pyidaungsu .
The fact that they want to have 25% of the administrative power in the new administrative structure reveals that Tatmadaw is a power maniacs. The evil Tatmadaw, with the connotations of the Burmese word, Taw (such as Naing Gan Taw ) depicting a Myanmar empire, if not a chauvinist tone over the ethnic nationalities treating them these ethnic nationalities as if the were the second citizen will have to be eliminated for real peace and genuine Pyidaungsu .
The fifth, and most crucial aspect is that the Burmese army is not sincere and has no love and cetena to the people of Burma . This can be easily comparable to with the latest Thai military coup where General Sonthi Boonyaratglin declared that he will be the interim Prime Minister just for a fortnight and that democracy will return to Thailand within a year, a time line, which the Burmese Generals dared not contemplate. Unlike the Burmese Generals it won't take a decade to draw up the new constitution but would be completed within a year. Unlike Burma , Thailand ' s latest coup has the full support of the people. However the most conspicuous aspect is that. Tatmadaw is sorely afraid that the people of Burma will be happy and prosperous e.g. when it came to power in 1988 after killing thousands of peaceful demonstrators they opened up the country economically and of course the investors rush in thinking that it was a genuine market economy and the middle class prosper for a couple of years. Tatmadaw knows that with the rise of the middle class the country will be inching towards democracy because it is a matter of time that this middle class will have a say in politics and so it at once reverse the trend, chasing the investors out of the country and destroying the middle class with the result that the country has now became poor at the bottom of the world's ladder. What more Tamadaw, is still not satisfied and is hindering the works of the NGOs who has come into the country with a sincere heart to help the down trodden and marginalized people. On the whole Tatmadaw has a cruel heart, to look on the suffering of the people but not the world community and when these well meaning NGOs came in they prevent them. They even indirectly forced out the Global Fund and will not let the International Red Cross to come in again. Are we going to give this Tatmadaw a role, which continues to harbor such mentality? In short if one were to solve the Burmese problem from its root this pugnacious Tatmadaw has no place.
Tamadaw Response
Now that Burma is in the agenda of the Security Council, let us examine the response of the Tatmadaw from it headquarters in Kyat Pyae. It simply says that there will be no change, what ever of its policies and will carry out its policies unswervingly. " Under no circumstances will it change these policies just because of pressure, coercion and sanctions ," said a five-page- long statement. The statement criticized the United States for using the United Nations. Of course the continue to lie the very concept of truth by declaring that there are no political prisoners and only criminals and felons and terrorists are in jail Concerning Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, she was restricted at home for:-
" constantly demanding confrontation, defiance of all orders, utter devastation, resorting to four kinds of sanctions and reliance on external elements all of which will lead to harming the national unity, national stability and national development as well as hindering democratization process . ."
The irony is that all these 16 years she was never brought to court to face her charges even according to their white lie, it seems that the Tatmadaw cannot even lie logically and scientifically.
Regarding the refugee issue, those residing at the so-called refugee camps in the other country are not genuine refugees but insurgents and their relatives and will not be accepted. The country is now stable, peaceful and tranquil with the prevalence of rule of law and order and development. Regarding the drug issue it is absolutely groundless and that poppy cultivation has decreased. The statement read that the spread of three diseases of HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria to neighboring countries are merely an exaggeration. It finally warned the UN that no encroachment on national sovereignty will be accepted.
The Tatmadaw has taken a hard line stance indicating that there will be no compromise with the United Nations and will fight to the end. Of course they are not empty threats, now it has 17,000 Kamikaze type child soldiers imbued with the spirit of supreme sacrifice. Like Mois Tsombe of Congo , will declared War on the UN and the world and die fighting. In such a scenario, how do we respond?
Prepared for the Worst .
Putting Burma in the agenda of the UN Security, (some interpreted as a major victory) is just a feeble step in the right direction, and the ethno democratic forces could not stay complacent but will have to work for it very hard. Let us recollect our beloved Bogyoke Aung San's words before going to London for the Aung San-Attle Agreement of hoping and praying for the best but at the same time preparing for the worst.
This feat will also depend on the outcome of the UNSC. Sanctions have not worked as both China and India including Thailand can easily beat the sanctions. To decide a drastic resolution such as sending troops to enforce the Security Council's resolutions will be met with the veto from China or Russia (read how the Junta eulogize and rely on these two countries as he is now in desperate position). It should be something in between the two extremes, so that both these two dictatorial veto power countries will not use the veto. The US clearly sees this trend and we are positive that our friends at the UNSC would push for it. If it comes to the resolution, something like to settle between the people of Burma themselves, with the backing of the UN, then it is time for the ethno-democratic forces to prepare drastic actions, at least psychologically.
The UNGA has earlier called for a tripartite dialogue (ethnic nationalities, democracy movement and the Junta) and we will have to strive for it. All the ethnic and democratic fighting forces augmented by the Diaspora communities will have to join hands, under a single command and with the backing and funding of the UN in terms of hardware (arms, air and sea cover) will have to fight the Burmese version of the Armageddon. This time it will be the real Pyidaungsu Tat that will speak the Tatmadaw on equal terms, in their own language. Let us move according to the UN agenda curbing our own extremist. Then and only then we will see who will resolutely fight on the Junta's side, on which side the people of Burma will be? On our side it is also going to be a test for those individual and groups of whether they love the country by the lips or by the heart. If we cannot achieve that then there is every, likelihood that Burma will be the Yugoslavia of the East.
But hopefully, the Junta will not reached that point and accepts gracefully of Gambari visit and a sort of a compromise to release Daw Suu and all the political prisoners will be reached. We hope and pray that the Burmese problem will be solved peacefully without bloodshed. If the Myanmar and the non Myanmar cannot come to an agreement, the ethnic nationalities should really think of forming the Union of Nationalities without the Myanmar .
But let us set things right among us by preparing the necessary aspects. Personally may I appeal to the Burmese intelligentsia especially the academics of Social Sciences in Diaspora to come to our rescue and help prepare for this coming Herculean task. The accusation that the academics know it from the beginning and stay mute just to save their skin must be eliminated once and for all.
Way back in 1992, when I was serving at Chulalongkong University as the Press Secretary of the ACRP (Asian Conference on Religion and Peace), I put up a paper titled " A Burmese Appeal to the UN and US " at that time President Clinton and Butros Ghali urging the UN to take up the Burmese case. It was put up through our head office of the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) at the UN building. This was later printed into a book and distributed among the resistance groups. In it I clearly outlined the role of the UN and that Burma 's case must be put up to the Security Council. I also send this paper to the UB group, since I acknowledge that we should fought under their umbrella. But on reading it they were hilarious about it, saying that I was a bit insane. Now the vision, which I visualize some dozen years ago, has come to fruition.
The point is we need a visionary leader who must be vigorous and dynamic that can correlate the conditions inside Burma ( NLD and the Tatmadaw ), the Diaspora (peripheral ethnic forces and the overseas Burmese) and of course with international communities (the UN, the West and the dictatorial countries) and then decipher the best way to achieve our cherished goal, which has come a bit closer. We need to reinforce the existing institutions with farsighted intelligentsia. Now is the time for t here will be no medium way either we do or die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)