(Why the West should not Invest or Lift Sanctions on Burma)

Kanbawza Win

Diplomacy

Even though man is essentially an economic animal and greed always supersedes the need, great caution should be taken by the Western world regarding Burma. They should not to be too excited or hysteria about the opening of Burma as Dr Zarni describes it as hyper ballistic characterization that the country is “on the verge of great transformation.” One should think twice about the investment and commercial dealing with the Junta orchestrated puppet Thein Sein administration and will have to watch it very closely the developments after the elections.

Currently the ruling hierarchy are the same butchers of 1988, except that they have discarded their uniforms for longyi (vkHcsnf) a Burmese sarong, and wear Goungbaung (acgif;abmif;) the Burmese headdress, instead of the military caps.  Their de facto leader Than Shwe staying in the side lines is the same person that placed old man, Ne Win in his dotage stage, is the real architect of seizing power from the civilian administration and replaced his senior Saw Maung, the Chairman of the State Law and Order Restoration Council and later SPDC.

One may have fancies that there can be a change of hearts, as belligerent generals can become reconcilers and peace-makers and noble dissidents become realist politicians.   But their actions, which speaks louder than words is an unmistakable proof of their evil mentality or techniques  not to mention their strategy have not change, just like the leopard that cannot change its spots .The only aspect of change is that they are in silk attire. This is the perspective which happens to be the major dividing line between a native born Burmese and a foreign experts, as the Burmese saying goes, “A snake sees the legs of the other snake”

A classic example is that one can witness that these ex brass  continue to adhere to the concept of “Lying the very concept of Truth” e.g. at first they deny that there were political prisoners, then they release the first batch of few political prisoners but being pressured they are forced to release the 2^nd batch in substantial numbers but the world knows that there were more than  900 political prisoners remain detained in jails across Burma.  Even though UN Special Rapporteur on Human rights in Burma Tomás Ojea Quintana urged the regime to release all remaining political prisoners, they refused to do so. Beside the current political prisoners released were under Section 401(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which explicitly means can be rearrested and forced to serve the remainder of their original sentences any time the regime chose to do. Of course these can be construed as the internal affairs of Burma and has nothing to do with the business community. But the logical question is can you trust to do business and invest in this regime when lying the truth is their standard norms?

In January, the regime continued to promote the appearance of a reform agenda by pursuing ‘peace agreements’ with ethnic nationalities freedom fighters and armed groups. The regime’s apparent haste to produce ‘initial’ agreements is clearly aimed at removing economic sanctions and other barriers to foreign investment because this is but one of the conditions placed by the Western powers after the release of the Lady. The simple logic is that if they do not meet this condition, than there is little hope of lifting sanctions not to mention investment. So the Regime representatives signed agreements with the Shan State Army-South (SSA-S), the Chin National Front (CNF), the Karen National Union (KNU), and the Shan State Army-North (SSA-N). However, the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) sees the writings on the wall and the regime failed to reach an agreement with them. So the Burmese army, the notorious Tatmadaw continued to launch an all out war against the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) in Kachin State and Northern Shan State with their scorch earth policies. There was such amount of human casualties and the hue and cry of the international community was so loud that on Jan 13^th President Thein Sein issued an order for Tatmadaw forces to cease hostilities against all ethnic armed groups in Burma. However, the Burmese army indirectly control by Than Shwe refused to listen and continued to mobilize troop’s reinforcements and supplies to conflict areas estimated to be over 20,000 Tatmadaw soldiers. The Kachin have adhere to the real Pyidoungsu the Genuine Union of Burma which makes the generals and the ex generals on the defensive and one can ask the Kachin of what is the raw deal put on their table is that Naypyidaw estimated that it will take three years to bring the Kachin to its knees before they launched another major war against the WA of Shan State who is much stronger.

It was in this aspect the question rises to the conscience of the Western business circles, “Is the regime genuinely seeking peace with their ethnic nationalities or just a superficial way of covering the hole with the paper and if so how can one do business with the regime who can destabilize the country at any moment and their business and investment can disappear within a moment?”

“Some people in the international community together with some political groups are crowing that they have press freedom now.” How far is it true when it prohibit not to publish any of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for the release of remaining political prisoners, comments made by 88 Generation Students concerning the need for the creation of student unions and the regime’s flawed policies vis-à-vis ethnic groups and News about the eviction of abbot U Pyinnya Thiha from his Rangoon monastery. On 19^th January, Freedom House released its annual “Freedom in the World 2012” reported Burma as “Not Free” and Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) released its “Press Freedom Index 2011/201 2.” rated Burma as  169th out of 179 countries of the world. How can one do business with the country when reliable news including economic and statistics are absent or figures lied? And yet the Western Business community is bent on going to Burma. Why?

The regime’s plan was –: through the soft-spoken President Thein Sein termed by those who see him as a sincere gentleman bent on genuine change  – which Dr Zarni term it as Kyaung Ché (a=umifacs meaning soft excreta of a cat that looks and feels soft, but equally stinky and potent. No doubt that he is successful in attempting to convince Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to adopt the evolutionary way of changing things rather than the revolutionary way which the mass desired and has used her something  like a tool to get US sanctions that block any type of World Bank/ADB and IMF ‘assistance’ to Burma. But the underlying cause is that the Generals want to stock their ill gotten millions, if not billions of dollars in Western banks for their near and dear ones, as they have learnt a lesson of what the Chinese do to Milosevic’s money after his downfall.

When it is clear that without any serious and genuine change, the Lady will not give them a blank check as she starts talking about the changing of the Constitution and settling the ethnic nationality grievances by calling the Second Panglong Conference that tends to reveal the true picture that the Tatmadaw generals are the real culprit of the Genuine Union of Burma (Pyidaugsu) as well as against Democracy will definitely rouse up the peoples’ emotions and send cold shivers through the spines of  these men is silk skirts and headdress.. Even now she is attracting thousands and thousands of people whenever she appears.  Hence they said a big “No” and regime in future is going to be less inclined to continue playing ‘nice nice’ with the Lady. Will the West invest in such a climate?

What more proof is wanted when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has to postpone her political trip to Mandalay, the second capital of Burma because she could not obtain permission to hold a political gathering at a football stadium , a lame excuse, if not a sour note just to show who is the real boss, Thein Sein or Than Shwe. It can be pressured by the big Chinese community in Mandalay via Beijing to rein in the lady through the puppet regime of Thein Sein. For business community of the West this episode clearly paints the picture that the regime can go back to its Orwellian rule at any moment not conducive to business dealings and investment and will have to think twice before investing.

The Western response to these developments should be somewhat similar way it responded to Yeltsin’s Russia with caution.  George Soros invested $500 million in Russian gas and oil sector and lost all. However if one construe “Free Market, that benefits Western investors and corporations, is good.  Anything, idea, any institution that stands in the way is bad, for instance, state subsidies for basic survival necessities, public provisions of health, education, social security, electricity and other necessities.

Private good, public bad.  Egalitarianism bad, ’survival of the fittest is good” then they should join the band wagon like TOTAL of France, Chinese, Thai and Singapore companies, Narco barons, cronies or may come up under the humanitarian associations funded by the Nazis ancestors, the Myanmar Egress and so on.

The Junta’s love affairs with the Kachin lasted for nearly one and half decades and even then there is still no happy ending as it ends in divorce. Now the romance with another new lover Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD has just began and is not even one year yet when there are several indicators that the honeymoon is not going well as the Mandalay episode reveals . The Western business circles bent on entering Burma may knew that it is neither holistic nor conducive to wholesome morality to do business with the regime but can their obsession of  profit motive and rationale be cautioned that it is still not subservience to business dealings and investment either?

Kanbawza Win

As a person who had worked at the European Union in Brussels, came as a shock to hear that the Foreign Affairs Council of the E U had adopted conclusions in favour of the current situation in Burma and is suspending the visa ban to prepare the ground for a further significant relaxation of sanctions when they are due for renewal in April.. Even though there are unprecedented causes for optimism, and changes for the better should be positively encouraged, one must harbour the benefit of doubt given the track record of Junta in lying to the international community. There have been many false dawns in the past and we are afraid that the West especially EU might tend to follow the Constructive Engagement used by the Asian countries to prolong the Junta backed administration.

One should note that the current government ministers are the same persons as in the previous Junta administration and lying and procrastination are their standard norms e.g. President Thein Sein made a speech in March 2011 which promises changes in economic and social development but it takes a year to release some political prisoners and still it did not meet the EU criteria of releasing them unconditionally. What more the catch is releasing more criminals like ex-military and ex-government prisoners e.g. the Spy Chief and his MIS team so that it can use them again in their administration as even now Khin Nyunt get $5000 per month for being a patron to a suspicious philanthropic Mya Yeik Nyo Foundation owned by business tycoon and MP Khin Shwe with a salary of $US5, 000 a month. Every Burmese see the writings on the wall of this staggering salary,

in a country where a third of the population lives on less than a dollar a day

Seeking ceasefire with some of the armed ethnic nationalities can be welcome but one recollect that the increased conflict in the past year is a direct result of the military-backed government breaking three ceasefire agreements since elections held in November 2010. [1] Why did the EU made no comment when the ceasefires were broken down, and human rights abuses by the Burmese Army have actually increased?  Even now at the time of this writing an all out war against the Kachin with 48,000 soldiers, (120 battalions) [2] while the peace proposal with the Mon has broken down. It is a good aspect that the EU is finally paying more attention to ethnic issues, but talking about financial assistance for returnees is highly premature. Even the ceasefires that have been agreed are tentative, and ceasefires have frequently been broken by the Tatmadaw in the past. With the military-backed government still not engaging in an inclusive political dialogue to address the root causes of the conflict, it is likely to be some time before most refugees feels safe to return.[3] The quasi civilian regime is still using its old trick of Divide and Rule only because of increased international pressure, but has so far refused to engage in dialogue about the political root causes of the conflict, instead deferring discussions to a later date.

EU welcomes the relaxation of censorship, in a recent interview with the Washington Post, President Thein Sein refused to give guarantees on media freedom, and when asked if he would repeal censorship laws he said; ‘The media needs to take responsibility and proper actions. Media freedom will be based on the accountability they have.” [4] Burma’s media is still highly restricted and not been repealed. The regime warns that “Action will be taken” to any one that publish the true story of unfairly evicting of the abbot of the Sadhu Pariyatti Monastery in Rangoon for his outspoken views or the ethnic conflicts where the government is dishonesty  dealing with them. Moreover local journals have already been prevented about irregularities—including in Kawhmu Township where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will contest. USDP has been telling people that they will only get access to electricity and micro-credit schemes only if they vote for them.[5] There are several limits on what media can report. Does EU is aware that free and fair conduct by elections is not possible under current laws in Burma?

Everybody welcomes freedom of assembly in Burma but there are numerous conditions in place such as the location of demonstration,  numbers of people, and permissions needing to be sought by various authorities as such that no legal protest will go ahead without government approval. For Example if the Monks protested again as in 2007 they could be treated much more worst. Promulgating human rights law seems hallow in view of the many caveats and security laws as they are extremely restrictive. It is a good thing that the EU welcomes legislation on trade union activity, but the first trade union was turned down because the President has not promulgated the law and flatly denied the request to creating a new student union or flies the peacock flag which symbolize Burma’s pro-democracy movement

We are dumfounded when the EU says that it welcomes the humanitarian access and is serious about the welfare of those in the conflict zone when it still refuses to fund cross-border aid to reach those unfortunate citizens where the military-backed government does not allow access. Hypocrisy is a strong word which we dare not use but the price of EU inaction in this areas are costing thousands of lives, [6]

One could not comprehend of why the Thein Sein government is establishing Human Rights Commission, when Than Shwe the previous dictator has already established a Human Rights Commission to cover up their abuses. A classic example being on the bias report of the conditions in Insein jail and we simply could not understand why did EU fails to call for independent international monitors like the Red Cross to be allowed into Burma’s jails?

Human Rights Watch had proved that the Burmese military continues to violate international humanitarian law through the use of extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, beatings, abusive forced labour, antipersonnel landmines, and pillaging of property, particularly in Kachin, Shan, and Karen States. Yesterday it was revealed that the Tatmadaw deliberately killed a pregnant woman. Burmese army units in Karen State forced convicts to work as porters in ongoing operations in combat zones, mistreating them through beatings, torture, and use as “human shields” to deter attacks or clear antipersonnel landmines. The army continues to actively recruit and use child soldiers, even as the government cooperates with the International Labour Organization on demobilizing child soldiers. Tatmadaw is recruiting child soldiers and using antipersonnel landmines around civilian areas. [7] With such glaring atrocities EU has the heart to reward the Junta backed Government as perhaps because of the numerous German firms and the French Total oil companies are calling the shots at the European Union?

EU members have spoken about three key benchmarks, the release of all political prisoners, the end of conflict, and free and fair elections. None of these benchmarks have been met.

(1)       Political prisoners have been released, but not all and most of them are still                                   in jail. This benchmark has not been met. Independent international                                                 monitors must be allowed into Burma’s jails to make a proper assessment. (2)       Steps are now being taken to agree ceasefire agreements, but conflict                                    remains. This benchmark has not been met either

(3)       Free and fair elections under Burma’s laws are not possible. NLD with its                          high profile and strong support can be overcome this hurdle as long as                                ballot counting is not rigged. However, other smaller political parties                                  remain disadvantaged.

When Senator John McCain met President Thein Sein, he asked to allow international observers to monitor the by-election but it seems that he refused. It should be recollect that in 2010, the regime did not allow any observers, but rather sealed the country off from most international press, rigged the election and appointed ex-military leaders to the new quasi-civilian government. [8] It seems that the reforms are only a ploy to have sanctions removed, rather than a sign of genuine political change.[9]

The EU does not have the broad scale and depth of sanctions which the American has. To give away too many sanctions too soon removes what little leverage the EU has. This will more likely discourage further change, rather than encourage it, and the EU will be sidelined in its influence. The EU has flexibility to change its sanctions regime at any time, not just in April when the annual renewal takes places. There is no need for a premature rush to remove all or most sanctions in April.

It is understandable that the European Union has focus on positives and opportunities as a way of encouraging further change is understandable, but glossing over and ignores serious problems that remain tantamount to be preparing the ground for more significant sanctions to be lifted, and inconvenient truths are ignored. It is still early to see the real motivations for what is taking place as the dialogue process that will lead to real reform and reconciliation is still needed. The EU must show that it is willing to respond positively to changes when they do take place, but at the same time must start to be more realistic about the real scale and nature of what is taking place. None of the changes they refer to involve the military and military backed government relinquishing any power or control Implicit in the argument that sanctions must be relaxed to encourage further change is an acceptance that an important motivation for changes taking place is to get sanctions lifted, rather than the military-backed government having a genuine desire to see a democratic transition. We feel that it is too early to give them the attention they deserve

The 11-member National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) comprised of the inner circle of Burma’s government and military leaders, which are the real power behind Thein Sein Administration reportedly, discussed sanctions and come to the conclusion that lifting the visa ban is not their top priority. The  greater concern are those that restricting the transfer of their ill gotten treasures to the Western financial institutions for the old generals’ near and dear ones because they did not trust the Chinese banks and have taken lessons on the episode of  Slobodan Miloševi?’s wealth .

What moral leadership would EU give to the Third World countries which are bent on rewarding the Junta’s proxy at the cost of 30 million ethnic nationalities of Burma? Perhaps the economic lens of the EU on the natural and human resources of Burma is too great to count the life and limb of the poor and persecuted ethnic nationalities.

[2] Interview with Gen. Sumlut Gun Maw, the vice chief of staff of the KIA

[3]Analysis of EU Conclusion of Burma  by Burma US Campaign No 17 Jan 2012

[4] Answer to Lally Weymouth, senior associate editor for The Washington Post,

[5] Irrawaddy 23-2-2012  Burma’s Censors Tighten Grip Ahead of By-election

[6] Analysis of EU Conclusion of Burma  by Burma US Campaign No 17 Jan 2012

[7] Human Rights Watch 23-1-2012 Burma: Promises of change, but abuses continue

[8] Irrawaddy 23-1-2011  Sanctions Debate Heated Up in Naypyidaw

[9] Hindstrom;Hana EU sanctions move triggers heated debate 25-1-2012

(The betrayal of the Ideals of Bogyoke Aung San)

Kanbawza Win

When the Panglong Agreement was signed in 1947 the Shan, Chin and Kachin want to speed up their own search for freedom together with the Myanmar brothers based on the principle of equality mutual trans and recognition and not to integrate their societies and their lands into the Myanmar Buddhist society or the Myanmar kingdom.[1] Here the concept of coming together means coming in difference and not one being merge into another. The idea of Bogoke Aung San was to build a Union of Burma, an entirely new country through a state building and not to create a nation through nation-building. In the submission of the Union constitution to the AFPFL at Jubilee Hall on May 1947, Bogyoke Aung San himself has said,

“When we build our new Burma, shall we build it as a Union or a Unitary State?    In my   opinion it will not be feasible to set up a Unitary State. We must set up a           Union with a   properly regulated provision to set up the rights of the ethnic nationalities.”[2]

However Myanmar contemporary historians never emphasized this phrase and wish that the people of Burma especially the ethnic nationalities would forget it. Even the arch supporter of the Burmese Junta Dr Maung Maung points out that,

“The Union States should have their own separate constitutions, their own organ    of         states, viz parliament, government and Judiciary.”[3]

It should be recollected that on the eve on the historic Panglong Conference to be exact on 11^th Frb.1947 Bogyoke Aung San said,

“The dreams of a unified and free Burma has always haunted me…We who are                                 gathered here tonight are engaged in the pursuit of the same dream. We have in                        Burma many indigenous peoples, the Karen, the Kachin, the Shan, the Chin, the                         Burman and others. In other countries too there are many indigenous peoples, many                     races. Thus races do not have rigid boundaries. Religion is no barrier either for it is a                           matter of individual conscience…If we want the nation to prosper; we must pool our                          resources, manpower, wealth, skills and work together. If we are divided, the Karen,                          the Shan, the Kachin, the Chin, the Barman, the Mon and the Arakanese, each pulling                   in a different direction, the Union will be torn, and we will come to grief. Let us come                   and work together.”[4]

Bogyoke Aung San has a clear idea of nation building and see the writing on the wall that the old concept of one religion, one race and one language had gone obsolete.[5] He rejected the religiously orientated ethno-nationalism that misled religion with politics. He thus declared,

“Religion is a matter of individual conscience, while politics is social science. We    must                   see to it that the individual enjoys his rights, including the rights to freedom of religious                      beliefs and worship. We must draw clear lines between politics and religion because the        two are not the same thing. If we mix religion and politics then we offend the spirit of      religion itself.”[6]

Myanmar Chauvinism

This is the essence of coming together but as everybody knows it Bogyoke Aung San and his key leaders were assassinated on 9^th July 1948 and it was U Chan Htun the only proficient person whom the leaders had put their trust on him shows his Mahar Bamar (r[mArm) mentality by betraying Bogyoke Aung San and the ethnic nationalities of Burma by completely changing his vision made it a unitary state.  According to U Chan Htun’s interpretation was that the Myanmar did not form their own ethnic state, instead they combine the power of the Myanmar national State with the whole sovereign state of the Union of Burma. Thus while one ethnic group; the Myanmar control the sovereign power of the Union, that is, the administrative, legislative and judiciary of the Union of Burma, the other ethnic nationalities automatically became a vassal state of the Myanmar race.[7] And this is exactly of what is happening today.

In order to control these ethnic nationalities it first set up the military base in Ba Htoo near Lawk Sauk in Southern Shan State, then it slowly expanded it to Nam Sang, Liang Khio, Mong Hsat in Shan states[8] and now they have several military bases in Chin, Kachin and Karen states. Since that time the various Burmese administrations have treated the ethnic nationalities as a colonial power instead of the Union of Burma.

The government use religion as an integration process which gives rise to the resentment of the non Buddhist especially among the ethnic nationalities. This spoil the theory of unity in diversity itself Although Buddhism has been a powerful integrative force in the traditional Myanmar society and is used to start as a rallying point against the British colonialist it was of little use in the settings of a multi cultural and multi religious context especially for a multi ethnic plural society. U Nu made an attempt to achieve homogeneity by imposing religious and cultural assimilation. In 1953 the ministry of Religious and Culture was created to promote the process of assimilation and eventually in 1961 Buddhism was declared a state religion.[9]

General Ne Win came to power in 1962 he went a step further by removing the rights and culture of the ethnic nationalities as a means of creating homogeneous unitary state. This he made it by declaring the Burmese language as the only official language to be used in the country and making Burmese as the medium of teaching in all levels of education from primary to University. No doubt the standard of education fell. He also prohibited the right for the ethnic peoples to learn their own languages. Hence national building both for U Nu and Ne Win was based on the notion of one language, one language and one religion. While U Nu opted for cultural and religious assimilation in Buddhism as a means of integration Ne Win used the national language policy and denied the rights of the ethnic nationalities as a means of creating a homogeneous society.

Hence the changing of the country’s name from Burma to Myanmar was an important step in assimilating the ethnic nationalities and it was done by force, and for the last half a century the Burmese Tatmadaw had implemented by killing the ethnic nationalities, destroying their livelihood, using rape as a weapon, waging war on ethic nationalities religion and culture by means of various persecution, destroying the identity of the ethnic nationalities.

Under the pretext of nation building, successive administrations have not only violated the basic human rights but also all categories of collective rights. Under cover of national sovereignty, the rights of self determination are rejected and in the name of national integration the right to follow different religions to practice different cultures, and to speak different languages are deprived and in the name of national assimilation the rights to uphold different identities and traditions are denied. In other words ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide has been going on for more than half a century. Either the ethnic nationalities must be integrated within the majority culture destroying their original cultural roots, or they must be denied the opportunity to enhance their cultural identity through political means. They seem to be inspired by Pakistan and Malaysia that make Muslim and Nepal that make Hindu as the state religion. Hence this is the basic philosophy of the Mahar Myanmar mentality which is the crux of the Burmese problem.

Currently there are two types of Myanmar, Democracy loving Myanmar who really believes in the Union of Burma and those Mahar Myanmar who still believe and interpret history only from their narrow nationalistic Myanmar perspective. The latter is hegemonic and myopically nationalistic believe that linear progression of Myanmar, save the colonial interlude of a century from a Buddhist kingdom originating in Pagan to today’s modern nation-state are considered as a Mahar Myanmar is somewhat akin to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi theory of the superiority of the Aryan race. Hence these Mahar Myanmar did not have an ounce of the Union Spirit and is unable to accept any ethnic nationality as an equal. They construe that they are imbue with a special quality far superior than others and that they must always be leaders in every aspect of society.

On the other hand the Pyidaungsu Myanmar are those genuine Burma especially from upper Burma known as Ah Nyar of our beloved Bogyoke Aung San’s lineage that want to share equally their weal and woe with the ethnic nationalities. They are the real followers of Bogyoke Aung Sau and are desirous to build the country in a modern way, humane and want to take a place in the hall of civilized nations. They did not want to be a pariah nation.

No Tolerance

. The Burmese administrations never teach the tolerance of other religion such as the minority religions adherence of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus etc. They never mentioned that some of the heroes of Pagan dynasty such as Byatwi and Byatta were Muslim brothers. Every historian on Burma will agree that in the Pagan temples all are not dedicated to Theravada type of Buddhism only but also there are temples of Mahayana type and Hindu temples dedicated to Lord Vishnu.[10] Again the Pagan temples were built by the Greeks and Roman architect whom the Burmese kings invited them and in many temples of Pagan the Christian cross were painted which shows that Christianity have reached the first Burmese dynasty. The first Church was built in Pagan and when the Irrawaddy River changed course it was swept away. The first Burmese Christian king was Natshinnaug, the famous poet and so on. This clearly indicates that tolerance of religion existed since that days and now with the Myanmarnization of the military Junta, no such minority religion or ethnic nationalities language were tolerated.

The idea that Myanmar are a superior race and that they have vanquished not only the ethnic nationalities but also the neighbouring countries were ingrain in them wittingly or unwittingly. This is exactly the Mahar Myanmar spirit. Hence, the conclusion seems to be that all the ethnic nationalities must follow their lead and like it or not must agree with them, there is no such thing as consensus or self determination. They could not comprehend the Union Spirit Not only these Mahar Myanmar believe in this approach but also propagate and interpreted in such a way that the majority of the international community who scarcely know where Burma is came to have a vague idea on this approach. Unless one is a scholar in the study of Burmese history, one could not comprehend the general outline of the Burmese problem and the current crisis. In the Myanmar mindset they construe the other ethnic nationalities especially those who are residing on the hills such as Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni are wild heathen and such a categorization did not exclude their eventual incorporation into civilization by acculturations.[11] So it was not ethnic diversity but cultural practice which divided people socially not necessarily politically. The Myanmar also looks down on the Arakanese and Mon. They are not categorize as hill people as they worship the same Theravada Buddhism but the Myanmar view that these Arakanese are Mon are the conquered race and people and is not worth the political thought. What more prove is wanted when both the Arakanese and Mon were not invited to the 1947 Panglong Conference and was taken for granted as part of Myanmar. This is the essence if not crux of the Mahar Myanmar mentality.

Hence in the case of the Union of Burma, firstly it can be explained as the capture of the state by the majority Myanmar ethnic group as arising out of the impact of the introduction of the modern state system upon which the authority structure of the Myanmar society stands. This definitely, dispels and dislocated the elites and the masses of the existing system many of who belong to the ethnic nationalities. [12]

Secondly the domination of the state by one ethnic group the Myanmar ethnic group that give rises to the “Ethnocratic Tendencies” in which the state act as an agency for that community in promoting its ethnic values as the core component of the nationalist ideology.

Thirdly, ethnic struggles are explainable as the reaction to this disruptive penetration of the peripheral communities by the weak ethnocratic state. This penetration provoked the collapse of the old authority structure existing before the 2^nd world war in the British era and dislocated the old societal cohesion. It was replaced by the new emergent elites with new levels and forms. This is the apex of the ethnic nationalities struggle against the Myanmar ethnic dominate state.

               Does history treat dictatorships with kindness and understanding?  Will the future hold sympathy, garlands and accolades for the Junta? [13] A military dictatorship is best viewed as a transitory phenomenon, in the manner that certain weeds flourish briefly when the topsoil is freshly disturbed. But there is a limit to how long topsoil is freshly disturbed, as against being cultivated.  Sturdy plants inevitably displace the transient species.  This order of succession of plant communities is immutable in nature. Ecosystem analogies are appropriate to understand the phenomena of the Junta, as its fate is also tied to the futures of disturbed conditions.  The Junta is ruthlessly repressive on people and exploitative on resources. It has uncontrolled growth. If the Junta machine were compared to the thermodynamic phenomena, the primary characteristic would be that it is extremely energy intense. The generals rule is that the more energy intense. An occurrence is, the greater the problems of sustaining it will become, and the shorter the expected life-span will tend to be. The Junta’s phenomenon is a turbulence or conflagration that is doomed to burn out and to completely collapse on it. This is absolutely inevitable.[14]

               The inviolable laws of nature remind us that the Junta will implode and it is certain to leave behind unspeakable destruction and debris. That will be the challenge for the coming up nation-builders after the quasi civilian government is gone.

Encouragement of Mahar Myanmar Mentality  

Studying the contemporary history of the world, country after country, there are few examples where a single ethnic group has taken control over the state and used its powers to exercise control over others. In retrospect there has been far less national building than many analysts had expected or hoped, for the process of state building has rendered many ethnic groups devoid of power or influence. [15] The Myanmar Ethnocratic state is the current situation where the state acts as the agency of the dominant Myanmar/Burma ethnic community in term of ideologies, its policies and its resources distribution. This is because it involves three propositions.

First the Myanmar dominated ethnocratic state, is one in which recruitment to the state élite positions in the Tatmadaw, civil services and government is disproportionately and overwhelmingly from the majority Myanmar ethnic group only. Even if there is recruitment from other ethnic groups like Shan, Mon or Karen or any other ethnic race it is only after their assimilation into the dominant ethnic culture. Moreover the state elites use their positions to promote their Myanmar interest, rather than acting as either as an autonomous state bureaucracy or as representative of the socio economic class strata from where they originate.

Second, the Myanmar employs the cultural attributes and values as the core elements for the elaboration of national ideology, and the state’s choice of national symbols all derived primarily from the culture of the Myanmar ethnic majority.[16] Thus the national identity which is employed to define the multi ethnic society is neither ethnically neutral nor multiethnic but is rather a Myanmar mono ethnic. Lucien Pye wrote,

“In reflecting the communal base of political parties it tend to represent total ways of           life….Nationalist movements in particular have tended to represent total ways of life   because such parties are inclined to feel they have a mission to change all aspects of life             within their society, even conceiving themselves as a prototype of what their entire       country will become in time. Members of such movements frequently believe that their         attitudes and views on all subjects will become the commonly shared attitudes and views       of the entire population.” [17]

The third attribute to the Myanmar Ethnocratic state is that the state’s institutions-its constitution its laws and its political structures- serve to maintain and reinforce the monopolization of power by the ethnic segment. Thus the channels which the state provides for participation are such as to either restrict all avenues for politics or to secure the disproportionate representation of the ethnic segment.

Whatever the part played by colonial and post-colonial history and politics, it is a fact that now ethnicity is now a serious matter. The Mahar/Myanmar and some foreign scholars endeavour to prove that monarchy as an example of central authority able to unite across ethnic and cultural divides.  Incidentally this is the theory which the Burmese military dictatorship tries to impose.  They try to find the abstract idea of ethnic community, that commanded primary loyalty and that a Myanmar king could act as the patron of ethnic e.g. Mon princely clients, and vice versa.[18] That the vacuum of central authority, after the fall of the monarchy, was further exposed through British colonial policy of administering the regions in a fractured model, as contrasted with the central control that the Dutch used in governing colonial Indonesia.

“Not all Myanmar are Buddhists and yet all recognize and acknowledge      the       centrality of Theravada Buddhism for their Burman identity,” Writes F.K.L. Chit Hlaing,

Regarding Christianity, Gravers conjectures that conversion implies political identification, and that Christianity is subsequently identified with modernity and the right to a homeland. Yet religion need not serve a unifying role, as a means of identification it can prove equally divisive.

The most prominent example of religion proving destructive within an ethnic group revolves around the 1994 split of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Organization from the Karen National Union. Though both groups go to lengths to state and show that both religions are represented and respected in their ranks, the truth remains that a significant number of Karen saw identification as Buddhist, or Christian, as conceivably more advantageous than maintaining a strict adherence to the precept of pan-Karen identity.
As the architects of modern Burma including several ethnic leaders were assassinated their vision of modern union of Burma on a just and equal state for every ethnic nationality residing in the Union of Burma was smashed. The vision and dream of the assassinated leaders were explicitly written in the first 1947 constitution where each ethnic state has its own constitution and have been enshrined in the right of the ethnic minorities to practise their culture. This was proven in the State flag where the five stars clustered around the larger star which represents the Myanmar ethnic group. This symbolizes the unity in diversity rather than assimilation and Buddhism was never been employed as a state ideology.However it should be remember that the development of a state structure dominated by the ethnic Myanmar personnel and values did not by itself precipitated the other ethnic rebellion. It was only when the state began to try to expand its control beyond the core areas of the colonial constituted a threat and launched vigorously couple with political centralization then it started the unrest.

Given the fundamental differences of belief, value and organization that connote pluralism, the monopoly of power by one cultural section is the essential precondition for the maintenance of the total society in its current form.[19] Until and unless the new leaders have a wide vision and stop this forced Myanmarnization then there will be little or no peace in my beloved country.

[2] See Bogyoke Aung San’s speech pp 306-307

[3] U Maung Maung Burmese National Minorities 1940-1989- p170

[4] See the speeches of Aung San also reprinted  by Chao Tzang and LH Sakhong in The New Panglong Initiative, Rebuilding the Union of Burma  p 13

[5] See the speech of Aung San delivered  on 20^th Jan. 1946

[6] Speeches of Bogyoke Aung San especially on 20^th Jan. 1946

[7] David C William & Lian h Sakkhong; “Designing Federal Union in Burma”. p17

[8] Pe: Tin (Shan State) In Burmese 0d‘l&ocifcspfarmif. &Srf;rlWSifhjynfaxmifpkawmifa&; p 16

[9] Cady; John F -A History of Modern Burma  p 636

[10] Read the Temples of Pagan in any Burmese history books

[11] Brown, David: The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia, London school of Economics p36

[12] For example displacing of all the ethnic commanders and replace with the Myanmar ethnic group

[13] La Raw Dr.Maran: The Nation-State of Burma and the Victimization of Its Co-founders in Burma Debate Nov./Dec 1996

[14] La Raw Dr.Maran: The Nation-State of Burma and the Victimization of Its Co-founders in Burma Debate Nov./Dec 1996

[15] Myron; Weiner in “Political change in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.”

[16] e.g. It change the country`s flag without telling or consent of the people.

[17] Lucian W Pye Politics, personality and nation Building: Burma search for identity. New Haven London pp 17 18 Yale University Press

[18] Smith: Christopher. Exploring Ethnicity in Mizzima News

[19] See Smith;MG “The Plural Society in the British West Indies Berkley, University of California Press  p 86

Now Bo Khin Nyunt (I just call him “Bo” meaning captain in Burmese because he was just a captain that used to come and stand at my table when he was serving as PA to Col Tint Swe attached to the Prime Minister Office when I was the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the first Prime Minister Brigadier of Socialist Burma, Brigadier General Sein Win way back in 1974-77) the former much feared spy chief and the Junta’s Prime Minister, the main architect of the illogical road to democracy has spoken that, all the ethnic armed nationalities groups are very honest and truthful. Unlike the Myanmar administrations they are not liars like Thein Sein himself who paints the prisoners of conscience as criminals and launched an all out war to the Kachin while talking peace with them. This is understandable as “Lying the very Concept of Truth” is the norm of every Myanmar administration. Now that the quasi civilian government is making some attempts to diffuse the situation with the dissidents both ethnic and pro democracy groups I have humble analyze the ethnic nationalities problem as follows:-

Marginalization

The most fundamental grievance of ethnic nationalities is their lack of influence on the political process and thus on decisions that affect their lives. Like society at large, they have been disenfranchised by a strongly centralized military state that regards them with intense suspicion. They have felt the loss of political and economic power even more acutely than the majority population as both the government and the officer corps are overwhelmingly ethnic Myanmar which are widely perceived as a foreign force. Ethnic nationalities groups consider themselves discriminated against and have openly accused successive governments of a deliberate policy of Myanmarnization. The ethnic nationalities are not only marginalized economically, but also that their social, cultural, and religious rights are being suppressed.

While many ethnic groups originally fought for independence, today almost all have accepted the Union of Burma as a fact, and merely seek increased local authority and equality within a new federal state structure. The military dictators, however, still suspect them of scheming to split the country and see this as justification for its repressive, often brutal policies in ethnic dominated areas.

Since 1988, most ethnic nationality organizations have expressed support for democracy, seeing this as their best chance to gain a voice in national politics and press for a redress of their long-standing grievances. The elite in the ethnic organizations are democrats by persuasion or regard democracy not an end in itself. Their main concern is to secure local political and administrative authority, further development of their regions, and enjoy the right to maintain and practice their language, culture and religion without constraints. This is a simple obsession of the ethnic nationalities of Burma

The strength of ethnic nationality organizations traditionally has been measured in military terms. The shift in national politics since 1988 and subsequent ceasefires, however, have transferred the main struggle from the battlefield to the political and administrative arena. The primary challenge for ethnic nationality organizations today is, therefore, to build political and organizational capacity – individually, and as a group – to ensure that they are not left out of future negotiations about the future of the Federal Union of Burma and can continue to represent the interests of their communities. They also need to help rebuild their war-torn communities and economies and re-establish a sense of normalcy and confidence in the future.

To negotiate and eventually overcome these obstacles requires vision, careful balancing of objectives and strategies, and significant implementation capacity. First and foremost perhaps, it requires a genuine commitment to move beyond narrow agendas and build a better life for local communities and the country at large. Most groups, however, lack these skills. In fact, the weaknesses and approaches of ethnic nationalities often mirror those of the central government and other local authorities. Many ethnic organizations continue to be dominated by soldiers who have little knowledge of political and social affairs or experience with relevant tools for organization and negotiation. They may have significant legitimacy rooted in the struggle for self-determination – or, in some cases, the 1990 election – but strong hierarchies and top-down approaches mean that links to local communities often are weak. There is also a dearth of people in these communities at large with relevant education and experience.

Over the past few years, some key ethnic organizations have begun to face up to these problems and start on the difficult task of building networks in long-divided communities and training capable leaders and administrators. Yet, much needs to be done and they are often seen

struggling against government repression and international indifference.

Dilemma of Changing Culture

Ethnic nationalities together with the Myanmar have lived in one way at a particular time, but there is no absolute ethnic nationality which persists unchanged through time. Society changes as people make decisions about how to adapt to constantly changing circumstances, including their relations with external societies.  Insofar as one can apply terms of biology to social phenomenon, such change can be seen as a natural, evolutionary process. On the surface, applying this view to Burma’s current struggle for social justice seems to yield little productive insight.  If culture, ethnicity and religion are always changing, and that perpetual flux is a normal characteristic of any social system, then what is the hope for resistance?  Change seems to be inevitable.

History demonstrates that some cultures triumph and others fade; civilizations wax and wane over time almost as if they are living organisms. This is especially true to Burma. The Myanmar race domination over the non Myanmar races have triumph all these years and in the recorded history of Burma the major tribes like Pyu, Kanyan and Thet races has all disappeared and vanished because of the dominance of the Myanmar race. Even in the last Burmese dynasty (Konebong dynasty) the Myanmar has tried to wipe out the Mon people when by a trick king U Aung Ze Ya called the entire learned Mon monk and burnt them alive.

Contemporary history has shown that the ethnic races of such as Shan, Chin and Kachin have consented to join the Union while Karen, Karenni, Mon, Arakanese are being forced to join the Union of Burma in taking independence from Britain. But all of them were very suspicious of the Myanmar ethnic and this was compounded the action of the Tatmadaw when it launched it ethnic cleansing policy.

This could, somewhat detached interpretation can even be taken further, confounding the good intentions of those Myanmar seeking to uphold the value of cultural diversity and ethnics rights.  If cultural adaptation is a strategy for dealing with change in the political and economic environment, then by opposing it do people invite hardship?  Are attempts to preserve the ethnic cultures simply bound to fail, or perhaps worse, to succeed in ways which limit people’s adaptation, hence compound their suffering?  Political, social and economic encroachments from all sides tell people to abandon their own ways and to accept the transitions which will align them with mainstream culture: from subsistence farming to cash-cropping, from the village to the city, from minority to majority, from the margin to the center.  To the extent that this message is oppressive, it is also pragmatic, telling people what they must do to survive.[1]

Of course, people resist this change vigorously, in myriad ways and for various reasons.  Burma’s history of ethnic conflict can be framed as a struggle to define and control the nature of social change, to distinguish Myanmar from a non Myanmar and assert the relative status of each.  Important events in Burmese history such as colonization, independence, growth of a national military culture, and the advent of a modern democracy movement reveal new aspects of this resistance.  Political and military movements espousing ethnic nationalism are one form of organized, collective resistance.  Flight, non-confrontational resistance and simple perseverance are examples of more individual or informal resistance strategies.

While none of these strategies has been particularly successful in negotiating a roadmap to social change shared by center and periphery alike, all have proved impressively resilient. Guerilla wars have dragged on for sixty years and refugees have subsisted in stateless hiatus for decades.  Despite perennial forecasts of its imminent demise, the power center has continually re-asserted its authority; despite the ethnic nationality’s claims to control social change, the periphery remains independent; despite ethnic nationalities claims to utter differentiation, the influence of the center pervades. Therefore, not only is society in constant flux, but equally enduring is the struggle to define and control this flux through resistance and adaptation.  If change is inevitable, so too is dissent, and so is the consequent struggle to control the agents and outcomes of that change.

In Burma this context of change and resistance is chiefly characterized by ethnic nationalism.  Rival claims to the control of social change are phrased in terms of the differentiation, history and autonomy of competing ethnic groups.  The categorization of these groups is a major point of conflict.  The vagaries of geographic, linguistic, cultural and historical criteria for defining ethnic categories are widely recognized both within and outside Burma.  Defining ethnicity by any of these criteria has proved problematic not only for the academics but for other investigators of ethnicity, not to mention for the people in question.  Nevertheless, the idea of ethnic nationality is central to social conflict.

Yet, just as culture constantly changes, so does ethnicity.  Political systems are an investigation of how the categories of ethnicity, specifically those of Kachin and Shan, are in them tools in a struggle for adaptation and resistance.

People adapt their identity as best they can to the political and economic forces which create change. Ethnicity is often classified by unique, exclusive cultural or hereditary traits, but there are as many exceptions to these categories as there seem to be rules.  These changes are marked by shifts in physical location and the economic relationships they connote, from lowlands to mountains, from rice paddies to widens plots, and from economic autonomy to participation in a feudal hierarchy.  Therefore, ethnic identity is also the product of adaptation and resistance. This formative link between identity and resistance also marks the nexus where social change in the anthropological sense of the term and the struggle for social justice

The conflict raises critical questions about the nature, role and priorities of a human rights movement.  How can those who wish to effect peace in Burma reject the dangers of ethnic nationalism, while at the same time promote successful adaptation to inevitable social change?  Can one extricate the interests of ethnic nationalist structures?  Moreover, how can this are done without submitting to nationalist hegemony from the mainstream, especially in the face of a deliberate program of Myanmarnization?

Thus Burma’s future activists, historians, poets, artists, scientists and educators may comprise a high number of people from ethnic nationalities whose skill, intellect and access to national institutions should allow them to celebrate, rather than denigrate, cultural and linguistic diversity.  They should not be forced to choose between absorption by the mainstream or social marginalization as minorities, but conditions must be drawn to enable to develop and adapt their identity as equal opportunity to other citizens.  Ultimately, more answers will be found by pursuing and expanding inclusively than by mimicking the mainstream trend towards domination and exclusion.

The present peace struggle for its treatment of ethnicity and social change is a necessity and inevitable part of society.  Ethnic categories, which also change over time, are subject to debate and interpretation, and indeed Professor Edmond Leach was ahead of his time by recognizing that they are at best artificial and problematic. [2]

Concerning Burma, one must recognizes a fundamental tension between the reality of social change and nationalistic attempts to articulate and enforce an ethnic identity.  This tension presents a dilemma to the peace movement, which asserts that human dignity should not be seconded to the inevitability of social change, and seeks to challenge the calculated absorption of the periphery into the mainstream of Burmese society.  An aspect of social change is free will, the opportunity to make autonomous choices.  This autonomy represents basic human rights about what language people want to speak, what clothes they want to wear, how they want to live and how they wish to identify themselves.  Violence, repression and economic exploitation all intrusions into universal and inalienable human rights are what threaten human dignity and survival.  Where an international peace movement intersects with Burma’s ethnic rights struggle, it must choose its path based on what people want and need to adapt, survive and live in dignity, rather than on a prevailing nationalist ideology. Ethnic aspirations are difficult to understand; pointing out its many complications and paradoxes makes it no easier.  Nevertheless, to make the right choices the peace movement must be aware of all the resources available to it.

The Importance of Ethnicity

On 23 May 1947, less than three months before his death, Bogyoke Aung San gave a speech which made his thoughts on democracy very clear. He distinguished ‘true’ from ‘sham’ democracy. He said,

“Only true democracy can work for the real good of the people, real equality of status and opportunity for every one irrespective of class or race or religion or sex. Not every democracy is true democracy. Some are imperfect democracies concealing in democratic guise the dictatorship of the capitalist class. True democracy alone must be our basis if we want to draw up our constitution with the people as the real sovereign and the people’s interest as the primary consideration. Democracy alone is the basis upon which the real progress of a nation can be built.”[3]

But lamentably none of the Myanmar leaders follow his vision. During 1948- 1958, the government under U Nu was at first running pretty smoothly, even thought being pressurized by the Myanmar nationalists. U Nu changed the Constitution. By 1961 the Saophas realized that the Union was not only totally under the control of the Myanmar but becoming under the Military; therefore, the question of “ to secede  or not to secede “ came to be an issue amongst Shan leaders including U Htoon Myint who was anti- Saophas. This was not a crime, it was a right provided by the Constitution (The Shan State had the right to secede after ten years, 1958). Hence the   secession issue did not arise out of conspiracies by the Shan leaders; it originated from real grievances.

Bogyoke Aung San’s daughter, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was shocked to discover the military’s actions of injustice, subjugation of the people, the shooting of thousands of students and the heinous human rights violations practiced against the ethnic nationalities. She exposed that the method used by the military in ruling the country was not what her father had wanted. By this exposure she damaged the military regime’s legitimacy. This is one, if not the main, reason why the military generals especially Than Shwe hated her so much and is so afraid of her

To move forward there has to be National Reconciliation of all nationalities coming together at a round table. The talk has to be built on truth, trust and transparency. In a country like Burma there has to be an understanding of the principle of territorial integrity and fundamental respect for diversity, and different peoples’ wishes for freedom, equality and justice. [4] In other words there must be a Second Panglong Conference which she has called.

To have a genuine democracy in Burma then dictatorship and Tatmadaw has to be abolished for good as it has no place in the modern and civilized world and in its place must be the people’s army Pyidaungsu Tat, the Federal army. In the United States is that: the whites constitute 80.1% of the United States population (2006 estimate); whereas, approximately 60 percent of the population in Burma is ethnic Myanmar and the present military regime is overwhelmingly dominated by ethnic Myanmar.

If a black person who belongs to only 12.8% of a country’s population can be given a chance to become the President of the United States and leader of the free world, Burma should give an equal opportunity to potential leaders from the ethnic groups which make about 40% of the country’s population. Ethnicity plays a vital role in Burma’s politics.[5] It is participation and inclusiveness that make a nation strong, and Burma is not an exception. Should Burma fail to understand this reality, the socio-political conflicts will continue to persist even after the restoration of democracy. Barack Obama’s election not only gives a new hope to millions of Americans, but also energizes the ethnic nationalities groups of Burma. Genuine national reconciliation and nation-building must precede the restructuring of the state.

The neighboring countries especially ASEAN China and India because of their selfish motives under the beautifully coined word of Constructive Engagement Policy have help prolong the military administrations in Burma and only now because of the punitive actions of the West that the rottenness of the dictatorship was reveal now should help Burma to be on the right road. Their selfish motive indirectly encouraging the regime with “Containing Balkanization” in Burma could easily lead to a resumption of localized arm conflicts again. Then as usual military-owned businesses, Junta cronies, foreign investors and traders, and ethnic drug lords and elites plunder the natural resources of the ethnic states, local ethnic populations will continue to be denied economic opportunities and  the ethnic nationalities states will also see their environment further destroyed by greedy businesses and bad governance. [6]

It is now up to the leaders of the ethnic groups to decide whether they will betray the 60-year long struggle for their ethnic people or stand together with an effective strategy to fight for equal ethnic rights. The rest will be history.

Last but not the lease is that the architect and butcher of 8888 uprising Khin Nyunt and his band of former Military Intelligence are let lose again coined by most Burmese as hell hound at large and by his conversation we know that he want to come back into the scene. This is a very dangerous trend both for the ethnic nationalities and the prodemocracy movements as he could twist both the international community and the ethnic nationalities. He together with Than Shwe should be standing in the gallows if real democracy and ethnic equality is to be achieved. We still has to see how Burma is unfolding,

[2] The fuller, finer points of Professor Leach’s work belong to the realm of social science, and much has been omitted and oversimplified here.  Nevertheless, it is hoped that even this cursory look might introduce an informed and articulate voice from the past to an enormous and complex struggle for social justice in the present. Read Political Systems of Highland Burma, Edmund R. Leach, Athlone Press, London, 1970.

[3] See Speeches of Aung San.

[4] S. N. Oo: Diversity and Democracy in Burma

[5] Nehginpao Kipgen :  ”Obama energizes Burma’s ethnic minorities” in Kuki Forum

[6] Min,Zin: Ethnicity, the Triumph Card in Irrawaddy

Looking at my beloved country I recollect Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, the last Komissar of the Soviet Union who tried his level best to save the Communist system through long-necessary reforms, as what the Burmese regime is doing now in releasing hundreds of political prisoners. It also catches two birds with a stone in placating the maximum impression on European and American diplomats and “human rights” organizations to lift their punitive sanctions which they so crave in order to legalize their personal wealth..  Not that I am predicting that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will be the Boris Yektsin of Burma as she has famously put it: “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to It.” but because the system of the dictatorial regime is rotting beyond repair and is crumbling. The Nargis Constitution following the Nargis Cyclone of May 2008. exposed not only reveal the dictator’s inability to cope with a natural disaster but its inability to deal with those offering help, from both home and abroad that clearly proves how much the corruption has been that have eaten the foundation of military dictatorship resulting more than 100,000 unnecessary deaths, and the suffering of millions of survivors and lost of billions of dollars.

Cease fires with the ethnic nationalities must be followed up by stopping the ethnic cleansing policies because in modern Burma is that the ethnic nationalities have been residing in their specific area long before the Myanmar race came into Burma.[1] The Generals using their pocket army the Tatmadaw is endeavoring these “undesirable” population due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these to satisfy their grip on powers will soon come to an abrupt end. This forcible deportation of a population – is defined as a crime against humanity under the statutes of the International Criminal Court which “constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes.[2] Furthermore such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.” The UN General Assembly condemned “ethnic cleansing” and racial hatred in a 1992 resolution.

In 1985 Anti Slavery International (ASI) was the first Non Burmese organization to raise the issue of concern at the United Nations. In March 1987 in response to growing reports of an alarming catalogue of human rights abuses by the BSPP (Burmese Socialist Programme Party), ASI sponsored a visit to Europe of a delegation from the Karen National Union. This was the first time since Burma gain independence in Jan 1948 the  ethnic nationality delegation from one of “Asia most war torn countries” had entered such an international forum where its delegation speak to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The ethnic cleansing of the Burmese regime has become a worldwide international concern and experiences of other multi ethnic countries, such as Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Burundi, and Rwanda. It shows how desperate these conflicts can become if left unresolved. It could easily become an all out civil war. Human rights abuses in ethnic nationality areas are the single most important cause of conflict-induced internal displacement in Burma and the scale of atrocities committed by the Burmese army is unparalleled within Asia. Surges of attacks by the Burmese army since autumn 2005 have compelled thousands to flee, especially in the Karen state where 11,000 people have been reported displaced during the months of March and April 2006 alone.

While an increasing number of people in the country face a deteriorating humanitarian situation, Burma’s internally displaced like the Kachins are particularly vulnerable and face acute humanitarian problems in health, nutrition and education. The Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC) has carried out the most reliable existing survey of internal displacement in eastern Burma. According to this study, which covers 37 townships in the Tenasserim and eastern Pegu divisions and the Mon, Karen, Karenni and Southern Shan States, the total number of people who have been forced or obliged to flee their homes over the past decade and have not been able to return, resettle or reintegrate into society is estimated to be at least to be half a million There are no similar surveys from other parts of the country, but other studies conducted by human rights groups have estimated that 650,000 are internally displaced in the border areas and at least one million countrywide.[3] Between 700,000 and one million people are also believed to have fled Burma to Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and other countries to escape human rights violations.[4] The large majority of the internally displaced, 340,000 people, are in temporary settlements in ceasefire areas controlled by ethnic minority groups, while at least 92,000 civilians remain in hiding and another 108,000 are in relocation sites after being forcibly evicted from their homes by the army. [5] Army attacks to increase control over areas in eastern Karen state, close to the Thai border, have displaced at least 11,000 people and over 15,000 people have fled to refugee camps in Thailand.[6]

Human rights violations are the single most important reason for displacement than fighting between the Burmese and the resistance armies. In conflict areas, the army has for decades implemented a so-called “Four Cuts Policy” which aims to consolidate control in ethnic nationalities areas by eliminating the access of armed opposition groups to new recruits, information, supplies and financial support. In implementing this strategy, the Burmese army is accused of widespread human rights abuses such as forced relocation, expropriation of land and livestock, extortion, forced labour, threats and intimidations, sexual abuse and other forms of violence.[7]
As the Burmese Tatmadaw substantially expanded its control over ethnic nationalities areas during the late 1990s, more than 2,800 villages have been destroyed and about one million people forcibly relocated to government-controlled areas.[8] In Shan state, approximately two thirds of the villages situated in the hills were relocated to lowland areas from 1996 onwards, and villages are still being destroyed.[9] People forcibly relocated by the Tatmadaw are commonly given about one week’s notice to leave their village and move to poorly equipped relocation sites, after which government troops loot any remaining belongings and destroy buildings and food crops to discourage return.
A development program, launched in 1989 to promote infrastructure in the border areas, have primarily served to consolidate military control over the ethnic nationalities population. Road building and natural resources extraction has led to easier access for the military and an increased threat of human rights abuses against the local population. A large hydro-electric project which will lead to the building of four dams along the Salween river in Karen and Shan states, has already led to forced evictions of 60 villages along the river and threatens to displace thousands of people when  implementation starts in 2007. [10]
In Western Burma, particularly in Arakan, the Muslim Rohingya and other ethnic groups have been displaced as a result of brutal discrimination policies, including the construction of “new villages” for trans-migrants from central and northern Burma. Many of those displaced have fled to Bangladesh, where conditions of asylum are very harsh, and where they face the prospect of forced repatriation.[11] The Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma has repeatedly expressed concern about the situation. The Na Sa Ka (e p u), a border task force believed to be under the direct command of the regime is said to be the main perpetrator of abuses against the Rohingya population. Although UNHCR is present on the ground after a mass repatriation in 1994-1995 of Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh, abuses go on unabated.[12]
In urban areas, whole neighborhoods, mainly in poor areas, have been forced to move due to “security reasons” or to make way for infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges and “urban development programs”. Hundreds of thousands of residents of Rangoon and other towns and cities have been moved to “satellite towns” that have been established in recent years.[13] A sudden move of key government ministries from Rangoon to Naypyidaw reportedly also led to the forced relocation of surrounding villages and forced labor. [14]
Anti-personnel mines are a major risk in Burma, affecting nine out of 14 states. The concentration of landmines is especially dense along the border with Thailand and Bangladesh. Most of the land mines were laid by the Tatmadaw and they lay mines close to areas of civilian activity to prevent relocated villagers from returning to their native villages. There is no systematic collection of information about mine casualties, but there is evidence that Burma is among the countries with the highest number of casualties each year. The mine threat has been identified as one of the main impediments to any future return of IDPs and refugees.[15]
While the general humanitarian situation in the country has deteriorated over the past years, the situation is particularly critical for internally displaced in eastern Burma.  The TBBC documented the extreme vulnerability of the displaced populations, among other in terms of mortality and malnutrition rates which are significantly higher than for the rest of the population. Tens of thousands are in urgent need of basic medical assistance, food aid, shelter and education, but no assistance is reaching them and surely this is but one way of ethnic cleansing.
The large majority of people needing assistance in Burma are cut off from international relief. The Burmese government generally refuses to permit any external involvement in its border areas and does not allow international organizations[16] access to war-affected populations.
After a period of expanded humanitarian space to some areas in eastern Burma, access has again been curtailed, that further restrict assistance by international organizations.[17] The tight surveillance imposed by the regime has led the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to terminate grants and Médecins Sans Frontières – France to cease its activities inside Burma. [18] Even the ICRC, which has a long-standing presence in Burma, has recently been restricted in carrying out its work, including prison visits. [19] Cooperation with the government has been complicated further by the sudden relocation of key ministries to Pyinmana in southern Mandalay division.[20]In ceasefire areas, relocation sites and in areas of mixed administration, the main method of minimizing threats is to comply with extortion and follow orders. [21]
The impending collapse of the Burmese military dictatorship system are political and economic because of the result of the Burmese military culture and totalitarian system The poor Burmese consumers turned to imports and black market to satisfy their needs because all the needs were swallowed up by military and there were no quality goods to balance imports except in extractive economy. These economic factors were linked to political and psychological factors. “the gloomy background of the worsening market situation … has a depressing effect on people.” Their gloom deepened as a result of policy failures such as the war against the ethnic nationalities and democracy movement

. Another factor was the lack of honest information, the secrecy and propaganda that is central to the culture of dictatorship. As contradictions mounted as the people of Burma became more and more cynical about the propaganda of government-controlled media. It was common to hear an average Burmese say that you could find truth anywhere except in government news This was exacerbated by the free press of the dissidents, the BBC, VOA and Radio Free Asia

Secrecy and distortion of information have disastrous economic as well as political effects. Secrecy and restricted movement, the hallmarks of militarism and bureaucracy, pervaded the Burmese society as all levels of the system, from institutes to ministries, were isolated from each other, both by barriers to communication and by an attitude that one should mind one’s own business. Economic indicators were routinely suppressed or falsified to the point that when the final economic collapse was imminent there were no published figures to indicate the points of weakness.

All of these factors accumulated on top of a profound alienation of the Burmese people that had grown up over the years as the country remained in the grips of the culture of war. Information was controlled in the form of propaganda and dissidents were sent to jail. People did not feel free to discuss this, resulting that most people did not participate in governance. In the Burmese military dictatorships all citizens were deprived of the basic rights and freedoms of organization, speech, thought, press, movement, residence, conscience and religion; full trade union rights for all workers including the right to strike, and one person one vote in free and democratic elections were in non existence. There is no free flow of honest information. which is against the principles of a culture of peace and development?

The Generals are desperately gasping and no Western country should be in a hurry to reward the vehemently hated Burmese Generals. I would agreed with David Steinberg’s comment “We foreigners should remember how marginal we are in helping the downfall of the Burmese military dictatorship, the real heroes are the people of Burma f all ethnicities” [22]

[2] Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780

[3] see Human Rights Watch, June 2005

[4] UNNS, 28 October 2005

[5] Thai Burma Border Council , October 2005, pp. 2, 24

[6] Reuters News, 26 April 2006

[7] Amnesty International, Sept. 2005 and UNGA, 12 August 2005, par. 65

[8] Thai Burma Border Consortium, October 2005, p.22

[9] SRDC, 2006, p.3; S.H.A.N., 7 March 2006 SRDC, 2006, p.3; S.H.A.N., 7 March 2006

[10] KDRG, 2006, p.2; TBBC, October 2005, p.20; HRW, June 2005, p. 42

[11] Forum Asia, June 2003; FIDH, 9 March 2004; AI, 19 May 2004

[12] Amnesty International , 29-9- 2005; IPS, 6-12- 2005; Kaladan News, 16-3- 2006

[13] USDOS, 8 March 2006; KWN, September-October 2003

[14] UN Human Right Commission , 7 Feb. 2006, para. 36

[15] Human Rights Watch, June 2005, p.13

[16] Human Rights Watch, June 2005, p. 60

[17] Mizzima News, 13 February 2006

[18] COE-DMHA, 20 December 2005; MSF, 20 March 2006

[19] Mizzima News, 24 February 2006

[20] UN Commission for Human Rights , 27 February 2006, para 7

[21] TBBC, October 2005, pp.55-56

[22] Steinber; David J Myanmar: On Claiming Success in The Irrawaddy 18-1-2012

Happy & Healthy Spring Festival!
???????

Kanbawza Win

The quasi civilian administration of Burma, unveil a new technique when La Nan, the joint secretary of the KIO announced that “the  KIO’s peace-building committee and the government peace-building committee agreed to meet in Ruili,” while at the same time the Burmese regime is launching an all out war of genocide against the ethnic Kachins, with airborne assault troops and chemical weapons and the fighting has reached the peak of human rights violations to the well known jade mining town of Hphakhant. The fact that the peace parley was held in the Chinese town of Ruili also indicates that the warring parties  of Burma cannot even agree to talk inside Burma because of the treacherous history of the Burmese Tatmadaw, paints a gloomy picture. What more proof is wanted when the Tatmadaw launched a new offensive on the day that President Thein Sein ordered to stop the hostilities? This clearly proves that the Tatmadaw controlled by the National Defence Security Council (NDSC), is against the very grain of Pyidoungsu , the Union of the country and Democracy is the real power behind the throne.

One can recollect that in the contemporary history of Burma several uprisings since the 70s was the people’s uprising from all works of life including the ethnic groups where they show their solidarity with the ethnic Myanmar. These clearly demonstrate that the ethnic nationalities are hands in glove with the ethnic Myanmar democracy groups. Demonstrations whether in 1988 or afterwards took place in the ethnic Myanmar dominated area as well as in all the seven ethnic nationalities states and divisions. The monks that were brutally suppressed in 2007 were not all Myanmar monks only. Many of them were non Myanmar such Arakanese, Karen, Mon, Shan and even Kachin. So it is clear that the democracy movement includes all the people of various ethnic backgrounds.

After more than half a century of civil war the international community and the world had recognized that the ethnic nationalities’ struggle for their rights is as legitimate as the struggle for democracy. It means that while the ethnic nationalities are part of the democracy movement, they also have a unique and different role to play in rebuilding Burma. This is not understood by many people both inside and outside the country. In the name of unity, the pro democracy Myanmar groups want the ethnic nationalities to have exactly the same position as the rest of the democracy movement. This is not unity but uniformity and seems to echo the Tatmadaw’s motto of ‘One blood, one voice, one command’. One cannot build unity with such a slogan especially when 40% of your population is different. It is very different from unity in diversity.

It must be remember that they regime uses Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the legal mechanism for those amnesties [1] under which the President the power

to suspend a sentence, while these powers lie with the executive and not the judiciary .[2]

This also means that the former political prisoners are constantly under watch by Military Affairs Security, generally known as Military Intelligence and their informers and can be arrested anytime, which I am quite positive that once the sanctions is lifted most of the leaders will be arrested again. This also means that the regime can use the release political prisoners and those ethnic political prisoners who are still in custody as a bargaining chip with the West. Hence Sanctions must not be lifted even though it can be softened as Australia has done.

In addition to sanctions, one needs to find a way to get Burma’s neighbours to commit themselves to help bring about change in Burma. The illogical Constructive Engagement Policy initiated by Mahathir Mohammad and Lee Kwan Yew has not worked and it was only now that Burma’s neighbours have awoken up to the fact that the military’s mismanagement is causing instability in the region. It is the duty of the pro democracy groups and the ethnic nationalities to convince the neighbouring countries that if they want stability and economic development, things have to change in Burma. Even though it will not be easy to convince China, Russia and India to help bring about change in using the language of democracy or human rights, than should try to convince them to support change now because of economic factors.

Ethnic nationalities have been working since the early 1990s to develop their ideas about a state structure based on the principles of equality, federalism, democracy and human rights. They look to the future when a real new constitution-making process, on the order of 1947, will emerge that will enable them to participate and engage in full and open discussion with the leaders of the military and the peoples of Burma. Together, they hope to see a new Burma, not dominated by the Myanmar ethnic race only making it possible for the peoples of Burma to live peacefully together and solve problems by parliamentary means.  In order to achieve this:-
(1)       There must be an end to social and political disunity and the threat to the integrity of the state. The various military Juntas always to  remind the people that its primary purpose in taking and holding power stemmed from the “Three Causes”: prevention of the disintegration of the Union, prevention of the disintegration of national unity, and perpetuation of sovereignty. The Tatmadaw leaders speak frequently of the threats to Burma posed by the rebellions of the Burma Communist Party (BCP), the ethnic nationalities, the invasion of foreign forces, the breakdown in law and order in 1988, and the interference in internal affairs by foreign governments. With the demise of the BCP, the end of the threat of foreign invasion, the reestablishment of law and order in the heartland, and the ceasefires with most of the ethnic nationalities, the military do not seem to have any excuses left. Moreover it has implemented rigged elections with an unfair constitution.

(2)       There must be recognition of the rights and interests of the several ethnic nationalities and they must approve of the constitution before it can be implemented. But as of now there is none of them. Under the two previous constitutions, the rights and interests of several ethnic nationalities, especially the smaller ones, were not clearly stated and this led to misunderstanding, discontent and revolt. In the past, the larger ethnic nationalities spoke for the smaller ones living amongst them, but for many, this was unsatisfactory. To avoid a repetition of the past, the military endeavoured to win some ethnic groups to support by granting of nominal control of local administration in their areas and allowing them to preserve their cultures and traditions.
(3)       The current Nargis Constitution must be disbanded once and for all because in practice it has none of the democratic and federal attributes and makes no mention of a federal union. Thein Sein administration has created a directed state in which elected representatives to ratify the policies, legislation and actions of the leaders. It seems to look to the Tatmadaw -led polity of Soeharto’s Indonesia as one model.

(4)       The illogical phrase that the Tatmadaw must be given a lion’s share, if not a permanent role in governing the future state of Burma is the most stumbling blocks because the Tatmadaw itself is in the Generals’ pockets.  If it is the Tatmadaw’s real objective to create a multiparty democratic system, it is hard to see what powers and responsibilities remain for the people to exercise. If the adopted principles for the Nargis Constitution constitution are compared with the structure of the government and the powers of the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) under the 1974 constitution, it is clear that the current administration intends to recreate the earlier model. Only, this time it replaced the party with the military and has given it all powers necessary to overcome popular opposition wherever and whenever it occurs.

It is already more than six decades of struggles, the ethnic nationalities have been willing to sacrifice life and limb to achieve what they were promised in 1947. Long before the British arrived, the ethnic nationalities had lived peacefully under their own leaders, spoke their own languages, and developed and passed along their culture and traditions. Only in 1947 did the ethnic nationalities voluntarily accept the Burman/Myanmar invitation to join in forming an independent union. It was the promise of that union the ethnic nationalities sought to achieve and still desire. They stand ready today to form a union with the Myanmar/Burman provided that it is based on the principles they fought for and enunciated in the several Democratic Alliance of Burma constitutional proposals. They are ready to discuss their proposals alongside those offered from other quarters. They will accept refinement and further elaboration when they are discussed in a future constitutional assembly and will leave it to the elected representatives of the people to decide.

The United Nations General Assembly in 1994 adopted a resolution that called for a ‘Tripartite Dialogue’ to solve the problem and build a sustainable democracy. This means a dialogue among the military, democracy advocates, and the ethnic nationalities. To be candid the UNGA resolutions over sixty years of armed conflict has not brought about the desired results. It is, therefore, crucial in their view that dialogue with the Tatmadaw is achieved. But the ethnic nationalities are well aware that a dialogue in itself will not bring about change. Many ethnic armies entered into ceasefires with the military starting from 1989 in order to find a political solution. But the Tatmadaw has not kept its promises up to this day as proven their all out war against the Kachins . To bring about the desired change, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the ethnic forces will have to skilfully use the economic and social concerns of the people. They will also need the full and coordinated support of the international community

The international community should fully support the United Nations and there should be no parallel processes to the UN effort. The UN Security Council should fully support the UN efforts and a consensus must be reached between US, Russia and China. There must be a multi-party talk along the lines of the Six Party Talks for North Korea but must include UN, India, China, Japan, EU, US, ASEAN, Russia (to ensure that it does not become a spoiler) and Burma is needed. We should note that ‘Friends of Burma’ or ‘Core Group’ to advise the UN representative and is not good enough as it excludes the current Burmese administration.  Being extremely paranoid, they will see it as a conspiracy against them. They need to be included and also held accountable in an international forum.

Today, the basic problem is the same as the founding fathers of the nation faced about three quarter centuries ago: how to construct a political system wherein diverse peoples feel free and equal, able to govern themselves in their own areas, protect and preserve their languages, cultures and traditions, while at the same time give their political loyalty to the nation state.

The end game for the moment is that the regime will fight and talk simultaneously and will continue to release slowly the remaining ethnic political prisoners but once the Western Sanctions is lifted they will go back to their true colour again.

[2] Article (3) gives power to cancel that suspension and order re-arrest of a person at any time without a warrant, requiring that he or she must serve the remainder of the original sentence. These powers lie with the executive and not the judiciary.

Kanbawza Win

Even though there was a euphoria over the political prisoners’ release and the US reward it with the raising of the diplomatic relations to the ambassador lever one has to take caution that the “Divide and Rule Policy” which the various Burmese administration inherited from the British, has been put to good use by waging an all out war against the Kachin and simultaneously inking the peace deal with Shan, Chin and Karen and the lesser resistance forces. What more it was able to wean away Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD from the pro-democracy Burmese populace and was able to lure the West to give up their punitive actions that will lead to lifting of sanctions while keeping some prisoners hush hush still under lock and key. This whole concept proves the superb diplomacy of the regime. But on the whole the people of Burma and the world are happy.

Gen Thein Sein has been widely seen as a more moderate and reform-minded but to the Kachin he is just another general whose words cannot be trusted. It has been more than a month since he made public his directive to end the army’s offensive against the Kachin but there has been no cessation of hostilities. On the contrary, more than 90 battles or clashes have taken place, with a steady surge in troop reinforcement. The ferocity is of the attack and the methods of scotch earth policy is such that it is in the category of the  war of genocide and the Kachin have no choice but force to fight the war of survival.[1]

Most of the ethnic nationalities are simple people and like to live in their own way of life and at that time the time of British colonization there was no such thing as ethnic conflicts in Burma because one ethnic has been living peacefully with the other for centuries. When Britain was about to give independence to this region, the majority of the ethnic nationalities readily join the Union which was formed by an accord signed at a little town in Shan State called Panglong in 1947, one year prior to the emergence of Burma as an independent, post-colonial state (in 1948).

In this sense, both historically and conceptually, the ethnic Burma’s so-called ethnic conflict is more aptly described as a political conflict against the ruling military rather than a conflict between warring ethnic groups. The conflict is primarily a conflict between the ruling military exercising a monopolistic control of the state in Burma and the ethnic nationalities. It is a vertical conflict between the state and various ethnically defined societies. It is a conflict about how the state is to be constituted and how the relation between the constituent components of society and the state are to be ordered. It is not the case of ethnic segments feuding with and killing each other, nor is it driven by the secessionist impulses. Looking at Burma’s history since 1948, a long-standing and seriously dysfunctional relationship between the state and broader society can be observed and it has been exacerbated by four decades of monopolistic military rule.

To understand the ethnic conflict, it is essential to look into the issues of conceptual differences, constitutional crisis, national identity, majority-minority configuration and other pressing issues like human rights violations, drugs and environmental management. The successive military regimes see Burma as an existing unified nation since the reign of king Anurudha (Anawrahta) 1044 AD. As such, all other non-Myanmar – Shan, Kachin, Chin, Arakanese, Mon, Karen and Karenni – are seen as ethnic nationalities, which must be controlled and suppressed, lest they break up the country. This is what most of the international and the world understand or comprehend. Incidentally this is also what most of the chauvinist Myanmar or in Burmese better known as Mahar Bamar (r[mArm) wants to portray.[2] This is the crux of the Burmese problem.

On the other hand, some of the educated and well meaning very few Myanmar and all the non-Myanmar maintain that the Union of Burma is a newly developed territorial entity, founded by a treaty, the Panglong Accord, where independent territories merged together on equal basis to obtain independence from Britain and this is what Bogyoke Aung San, the architect of Modern Burma envisage. In this aspect it may seen that the genuine Burman/Myanmar headed by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi wants to instil the real Union Spirit but still fell short by her actions So far the NLD has not issue any statement of sympathy or solidarity with the suffering internally displaced persons. No appeals made to international organizations or governments for humanitarian assistance and moral courage seems to be lacking not only on the Kachin but also on the ethnic nationalities.  The instigator of this genocide is not identified or condemned [3]and this is detrimental to the Pyidaungsu Spirit (yifvHkpdwf”gwf). Given such conceptual differences, the Burmese military goes about with its implementation of protecting “national sovereignty” and “national unity” at all cost. This, in turn, gives way to open conflict resulting in more suppression and gross human rights violations. The intolerance of the military and its inspiration to “racial supremacy” and to political domination and control has no limit and the climax of it  could be seen by its refusal to hand over power to the winners of 1990 nation-wide  election, the NLD,SNLD and other ethnic parties. [4]

The woes of Burma today are deeply rooted in the inadequate constitutional drafting of 1947. The Union Constitution was rushed through to completion without reflecting the spirit of Panglong, or Panglong Seikdat. And lamentably it was still repeated today in the current Nargis Constitution, The ethnic homelands were recognized as constituent states but all power was concentrated in the central government. Almost all the non-Myanmar and Burmese democratic opposition groups are in agreement that the ethnic conflict and reform of social, political and economic cannot be separated from one another. And the only solution and answer is to amend the 1947 Constitution according to Panglong Agreement, where equality, voluntary participation and self-determination, of the constituent states, formed the basis for the Federal Republic of the Union of Burma or rather the Genuine Union of Burma.[5] The ethnic nationalities, especially in the cases of the Karen, Kachin and WA remained such a stumbling block as the Myanmar administrations fails to honours the principles of the Panglong Agreement.[6]

Burma’s fundamental problem is not just about leadership, policy failure, dysfunctional institutions, rights abuses or fractured opposition movements. Categorically speaking, Burma is confronted with nothing less than a full-scale pathological process of internal colonization, this time by its own military. This is an evolutionary process which was set in motion since the coup of 1962 decisively established one-party military rule, where the military and the State cannot be separated.  Indeed Burma has evolved into a dual-colony in which the population of more than 50 million citizens is being herded into a political space via the Orwellian “7-steps road map for democracy.”  The ruling military clique backed by its 400,000-strong military will continue to make all decisions with massive societal and ecological consequences for the whole population; only this time their decisions are going to be made to sound constitutionally mandated, and in accord with the laws of the land.   Further, this small group of men subscribe to an irredeemably myopic and toxic version of ethno-nationalism which refashions Burma along the old feudal lines where the majority “Myanmar and Buddhists,” as defined by these men in generals’ uniform, will be more equal in their Union of Republic of Myanmar.

Needless to say, the generals will pay lip service to ethnic unity and create nominal space for the ethnic people while pursuing “Divide and Rule” as the overarching strategy. The ruling generals have rejected the federal spirit of ethnic equality and violently opposed any struggle towards a genuine federated Union.  They have declared dead the Panglong Agreement of 1947, the founding document of a modern, post-colonial Burma, wherein ethnic equality was enshrined as an inviolable pillar of multi-ethnic Burma. Hence in new colonial rule under its own military, will control, subjugated or crushed.

For those who have viewed the emerging parliamentary and formal political processes as the only space in which the people’s voices can be heard, policies debated and public welfare advanced, it is time for a serious rethinking and soul-searching. The opposition have made repeated calls for national and ethnic reconciliation as well as genuine public expressions of inter-ethnic solidarity, which is the last thing any colonial power would want and would tolerate is social and ethnic solidarity across communities, regions and classes. The colonized ethnic nationalities are to be exploited, crushed, subjugated or co-opted.

The generals, of course, don’t see themselves as “native colonialists.” They feel no need for reconciliation along ethnic or political lines with any person, organization or community. In short, they have done nothing wrong, and they can do no wrong.  For they perceive themselves as the country’s sole national guardian, untainted by partisan politics.  They are committed to the abstract idea of a multi-ethnic nation while trampling on the very idea in reality.  And they embrace an absolutist notion of sovereignty where the military, not the people in whose name it exists, is sovereign. They love the country, but they can’t stand the people, especially the kind who refuse to go along with their design for the rest of the country. Political, defiant ethnic communities and political prisoners spring to mind. Their politics is all about resuming and completing the process of re-consolidation of the power of the ethnic Burmese majority, most specifically the soldiering class, over the rest of the ethnic nationalities –a process only interrupted by the old kingdom’s 19th century defeat by Great Britain.  Sixty years after independence, the military has built its own version of local colonial rule serving as the constitutionally-mandated ruling class and where the rest of the civilian society, especially the ethnic nationalities and the majority of the Myanmar who does not goes along with the generals are classified as second class citizens.

Throughout modern history, no colonialism is ever known to have offered the colonized political processes or institutions which would undo, or even undermine, such broad colonial objectives as economic exploitation of land, labour and natural resource, political domination and subjugation of populations under colonial rule, and control over the cultural and intellectual life of colonies. Whether one has in mind the formal and classical version, which dissolved, thanks in no small part to colonialists slaughtering one another  during the two 20th century world wars, or the subsequent and newer versions characteristic of the Cold War, the essence, objectives and nature of colonial rules remain virtually the same.[7]

Humanitarian assistance, developmental aid, foreign direct investment, increased trade or commerce may be needed in any systemic efforts to rebuild poverty-stricken Burma emerging from decades of war and conflicts.  But they are no substitute for forging inter-ethnic and class solidarity, on which an inter-generational political resistance, armed and non-violent, depending on one’s own location, needs to be built.

The fact is the colonial state in the Union of the Republic of Myanmar stands in between public welfare and international assistance and increased foreign direct investment, which has been in the billions thanks to Burma’s economically predatory regional friends such as China, Thailand, India, Malaysia, South Korea and Singapore. Precisely because this ethno-nationalist bond between the Burmese Generals and the majority Buddhist Myanmar has been irreparably broken down, the recent call by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic nationalities leaders for reconciliation and inter-ethnic solidarity against oppression poses the greatest threat to the ruling Generals uniform or otherwise.  While Burma’s issues are complex, as far as the regime’s strategy is concerned it is a simple, time-tested “Divide-and-Rule.”  The only way the opposition movements in particular and multi-ethnic communities in general can defeat these native colonizers is through inter-ethnic—and inter-class—solidarity and we hope that UNFC would recruit the think tanks of Burmese Diaspora to be more effective.

Last, but not the least is that the West must give up their Sanctions which the regime so craved. The Constructive Engagement Policy of China, India and especially ASEAN has prolonged the change up to this day. It was the punitive actions of the West that made the Burmese generals relent as they are so desirous to keep their ill gotten wealth to the near and dear ones once they leave this earth. Sanctions must be maintained at all cost.

Prof. Kanbawza Win can be reached at bathannwin@gmail.com

.

[2] Mahar Bama spirit defines the Myanmar chauvinist attitude which can be seen even in the peripherals of Burma and in Diaspora, not to mention inside the country, where the ethnic cleansing is going on with might and main. That is they want to be have a finger in every pie and they always want to be a leader in every aspect of the movement. A classic example is that to play soccer as a team with the other ethnic nationalities he is the one who not only wants to be the captain but always want to shoot the winning goal. He tends to treat the other ethnic as inferior and that only he can lead. The other ethnic must follow him

[3] Laphai,  Nang-Kai; General, You Lied in The Irrawaddy 13-1-2012

[4] Sai Wan Sai in Shan-EU “Causes of Ethnic conflict and contemporary politics.”

[5] Ibid

[6] Aung; Htet  A Tip of ASEAN: Ethnic: Reality beyond the Election in The Irrawaddy 25-1-2010

[7] Zarni; Dr Maun  Burma Needs Inter-Ethnic and Inter-Class Solidarity in Irrawaddy 14-12-2010

Why should the West Fall into Burmese Trap?

Kanbawza Win

I was contemplating, whether the Burmese regime would be able to deceive the West after tricking its own People? Lamentably I could not find the answer as it seems now. I simply could not comprehend of why the foreign dignitaries believed what their advisers and analysts say when they did not have any idea of what the psyche and rationale of the Burmese generals and its army, not to mention the generals’ thinking. It is rather bewildering  to witness influential businessmen and foreign political leaders of the Western World  lining up to give a courtesy call to the Burmese regime .After the visit of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Thailand’s Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Indonesia Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa (Chairperson of ASEAN), Japan Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba came. Now the British Foreign Secretary William Hague, have visited the country to be followed by the Danish Delegation and the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé. Earlier, Norwegian Minister for Environment and International Development, Mr Erik Solheim, had come and all seems to fall into the Burmese Generals’ trap even though Daw Aung San Suu Kyi had warned that there is nothing to be excited about it.

It seems that the visit of Hillary Clinton is interpreted by the Western leaders as a green light to begin to lift sanctions and provide development assistance as men by nature is an economic animal. But promoting the commercial interests too much, too soon, rough riding shot over human rights and democracy is not advisable. The West should not be carried away by some cosmetic reforms and that Burma’s long-ruling military still wields enormous power despite a veneer of democracy provided by the sham elections with a dubious constitution. It would be irrational and irresponsible for the international community to consider lifting the current sanctions and allowing foreign investments return to Burma; doing so will only enrich the top tiers of the military regime and their business associates while enslaving millions of people under their oppression. This will surely lead to regional instability. Great care must be taken that these visits did not lead to a big kind of commercial deal.

I recollected of how the people used to laugh at me when I make a presentations in Europe and America some three decades ago that Burma was unique and the Generals are very cunning, cruel and tricky. The international community construed that Burma, is just like any other Third World Dictatorial Countries that is soon bound to change. That was sometime in the late 70s or early 80s when the winds of change came howling through Asia and dictators like Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos, Indonesia’s Suharto,  Pakistan’s Ayub Khan, Thailand’s Thanom Kittikachorn were making their exist and the world predicted that Burma’s Ne Win would soon follow. But prove to be wrong. Now the Arab spring came smiling and the self appointed international Burma experts, political pundits, international think tanks like ICG with an economic eye are predicting that the Burmese spring is imminent, after a long winter and predicted that soon these sordid generals would soon be history. I am afraid that they will be proven wrong again.

Of course, not every Burman/Myanmar is bad but every Burmese administration is bad and this has been authentically proven by ancient and contemporary histories of Burma. The act of deceiving or concealment or distortion of the truth with the main purpose of misleading, duplicity or fraud and cheating seems to be the standard of all the Burmese military administrations. Synonyms like deceiving, trickery, deception, craftiness, crookedness, cunning, dishonesty dissembling, dissimulation, double dealing dupery duplicity, fakery, foxiness fraud, guile wiliness all seems to fit Thein Sein’s pseudo-civilian government.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself has revealed that Tatmadaw, wield immense power. As things slowly revealed, Than Shwe used his National Defence Security Council (NDSC) where his proxy the Vice President and the Army Chief plays key roles in blocking the release of leading dissidents serving long sentences.  In shot he is using the Tatmadaw against Democracy, Development and the Union of the country. Its sole purpose is to be in power in perpetuity. Than Shwe and his military colleagues who are the real power behind was able to trick the international community by making some cosmetic changes when it release just a mere one tenth of the 2,500 political prisoners while celebrating its independence day by launching an all out war using air force and chemicals weapons against the ethnic Kachin in their course of ethnic cleansing policy is a clear indication of their real intention/.

What more prove is wanted when influential businessmen like the fugitive former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, met with the Junta supremo Than Shwe under the pretext a preparatory trip Yingluck Shinawatra’s visit to Burma. Being one of the architects of ASEAN’s Constructive Engagement Policy knew exactly who the pivotal figure behind the scenes is. His not so secret meeting with Than Shwe proves not only the “hush hush” dealing but expose the lingering presence of Than Shwe even on the diplomatic scene. That is why Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself said that that Tatmadaw could block the reforms “I am concerned about how much support there is in the military for change, how far the military are prepared to cooperate with reform principles.” Even though there was a momentum for change one should not be prematurely over optimistic and relax for the Tatmadaw can change everything as she has indicated.

However, I was aghast when George Soros, billionaire American philanthropist, whose foundation supports grantees that provide uncensored news on Burma and activists, visited Burma. Speaking with him earlier at the Copenhagen Conference my impression that he was well advised by his Burmese advisers, the Burma Project has proven wrong again

The world must realize that as long as the Tatmadaw is strong and control by Than Shwe and a group of Myanmar Chauvinists generals, whose greed and obsession of lording over the entire country under different pretext, there will be no peace or genuine democracy not to mention the Union of Burma with ethnic equality. In turn it became a regional and later the world problem if the nuclear program is not constraint. The natural resources like of natural gas, gems, and timber are too much attraction for these men in uniforms. Releasing a small fraction of the prisoners of conscience and tricking a few ethnic war lords to sign peace deal will not augur well in the long run

One of the most important aspects of the  military regime is that  it believes that universities education are the birth place of dissent against autocratic rule and want to kill  progressive ideas. Hence since 7^th July 1962, the Burmese generals have sought to subvert education in Burma to remain in power at any cost. They kill most of the universities students whenever there were a crisis, often close them and send them to remote places and at the same time indirectly encourage them in consumption of recreational drugs on campus just to veer students away from opposition politics. It had bonded the rights to education as a hostage to be always held in captivity and then they can control the country.

But the children of the Generals and those rich enough enjoy uninterrupted and quality education. At the same time Tatmadaw has established its identity as über-nationalist, superior institution solely capable to safeguard them, the new  officers are expected to become knowledgeable in economic and other matters to be able to fulfill their extended political and military tasks in building a strong military force and a wealthy and technologically developed army. While the national education system suffers chronically from lack of funds they want their children to go to the West and studies and here come in the Western sanctions that prevented them from doing so.

One of the pretext if not the raison d’être in ending the Western Sanctions is to counter an increasingly heavy Chinese influence on the country as in April the European leaders will decide whether to continue the current sanctions or not. But the hidden agenda is that the old generals are desirous to transfer their ill gotten money to their near and dear ones in trustworthy Swiss and other Western Banks as China could not be trusted and this is the real reason of why they crave so much for Western Sanctions to be lifted. The young and the new powerful group of military men and their families are still eager to follow the old generals and earn huge personal wealth from international trade and the rapid development of what is one of the poorest countries in the world.

The release of all political prisoners is just one of the steps in the country’s reforms, and since it fell short of expectations the United States, the European Union and other nations should seriously considered lifting the sanctions and we are hearten when State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told a news briefing. “Even one political prisoner too many, We continue to call for the release of all political prisoners, a halt to hostilities in ethnic areas, and an inclusive dialogue with ethnic minorities toward national reconciliation, space for all political parties to freely compete in April 1 by-elections, and full implementation of legislation to protect universal freedoms of expression, assembly and association,”

If this is the case then William Hague should rather invite these Burmese Generals to The Hague in Netherlands to the International Criminal Court for their crimes against humanity instead of relaxing the punitive actions.

(Prof. Kanbawza Win, the former Foreign Affairs Secretary to the Prime Minister of Burma has worked as a Senior Research Fellow at the European Institute of Asian Studies) Ed.

Kanbawza Win

The common denominator of these three men are cruelty, brutality, ruthlessness, and secrecy that had set-up a tyranny which simultaneously oppressed and starved its people to an almost unique degree to sustain their own regime. All of them have directly or indirectly killed from 1-5 to 2 million of its own citizens.

Pol Pot (actual name of birth is Saloth Sa) won the scholarship in 1949 to study radio electronics in Paris became enthralled by writings on Marxism and revolutionary socialism and forges bonds with other likeminded young Cambodians studying in the metropolis, including Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, Khieu Ponnary, Khieu Thirith and Song Sen who are destined to become the notorious Khmer Rouge leaders. Returning from a secret trip to North Vietnam in 1967, Pol Pot takes refuge in the northeast of Cambodia where he lives with a hill tribe and was so impressed by their simple, non-material way of life, imagine itself to be a realisation of communist ideals.

Beginning on the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into the capital, Pol Pot declares ‘Year Zero’ and directs a ruthless program to “purify” Cambodian society and no opposition were tolerated.  Buddhist monks are defrocked and forced into labour brigades. In Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart, abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work, even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets. Doctors were killed, as were most people with skills and education that threatened the regime. The Khmer Rouge like the Burmese Tatmadaw (army) persecuted members of minority ethnic groups — the Chinese, Muslim Chams, Vietnamese and Thais who had lived for generations in the country, and any other foreigners — in an attempt to create a ”pure” Cambodia. Non-Cambodians were forbidden to speak their native languages or to exhibit any ”foreign” traits. The pogrom against the Cham minority was the most devastating, killing more than half of that community. The Cambodian genocide of 1975-1979, in which approximately 1.7 million people lost their lives (21% of the country’s population), was one of the worst human tragedies of the last century. As in the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide, in Nazi Germany, and more recently in East Timor, Guatemala, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot combined extremist ideology with ethnic animosity and a diabolical disregard for human life to produce repression, misery, and murder on a massive scale. Irrefutable evidence of “crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, homicide, torture and religious persecution.” were found by the UN. But the people of Cambodia were liberated when on 15^th April 1998 in a small thatched hut in the mountains of northern Cambodia Pol Pot died at the age of 73 when the government troops were closing down on him and left the nation in trauma up to this day.

Kim Jong Il was born in 1941 in Siberia, when his father Kim II-sung better known as the Great Leader was living in exile; Kim Jong IL had a reputation as a spoiled playboy who vainly wore platform shoes to appear taller. After his father’s death in 1994, Kim Jong-Il managed to retain power (although he did not assume his father’s titles until 1997, when he was named secretary of the Communist party) was known as a Dear Leader. Kim Il-sung’s death on July 8, 1994. marked the first hereditary transfer of power in a Marxist, Communist state as even today his son Kim Jong Un took power as the Supreme Leader to complete the hereditary communist throne of North Korea and retain the Kim family dynasty. Seven senior officials – all high-ranking party officials or military figures will be guiding North Korea during Kim Jong Un’s early years in power.
During the three generations North Korea like Burma had become one of the most isolated countries in the world, with frequent famines and an economy in a shambles. Something like Burma’s Ye Kyi Aing and notorious jails of Insein and the likes, North Korea has a torture camps because Kim Jong Il needed them to terrify his destitute people into quiescence. Now, as his callow third son maneuvers to take over the world’s most shuttered state, it is worth reflecting on the staggering breadth of human rights abuses in North Korea. How they were used for so long to keep the lid on the North Korean people, and why many Westerners paid so little attention. Kim’s cruelty that was often overlooked partly due to the deceptive power of the images that found their way out of North Korea on TV and newspapers but mainly due to the nuclear weapons and long-range missiles that most effectively kept his government’s grotesque human rights record out of the popular imagination. Thanks to missile launches and nuclear tests, Kim endlessly made sure North Korea seemed really scary. And it worked. Neighboring states and the U.S. government became obsessed with containing his primitive nuclear devices and the missiles that might one day deliver them to Seoul, Tokyo, or San Francisco.  To this North Korean diplomats would periodically participate in negotiations over nukes and missiles, but when it comes to concentration camps they would throw a fit and storm out similar to what the Thein Sein administration would react when mentioned that thousands of political prisoners were still under lock and key.

Like the Tatmadaw it steals much of this relief food that has caused severe malnutrition has caused cognitive impairment for millions and speculates that, even if reform were to come, the capacity of North Koreans to revive their country has been severely set back. The North Koreas like the people of Burma are desperately hungry and obviously hungry people do not have time or energy to cause trouble. Like the Army led Burmese Socialist Programme Party Kim could not stamp out the scrappy informal back markets that sprang up to feed the desperate masses, so his security forces have brutally co-opted the markets, extorting bribes from traders and, in the absence of a living wage from the government, using the money to feed and clothe their families, similar to what the Tatmadaw is doing now. If these -market traders do not pay up, they can be sent to jail under different pretext subjected to execution, torture, and starvation.

Should the Kim dynasty continue to resist the forces of change flooding in from China, the son will need all his family’s totalitarian tools in order to keep control? But, if Kim Jong Un makes some state accommodation to Chinese-led economic growth food shortages and poverty would likely ease. And there would be no need from him to perpetuate his father’s extraordinary era of cruelty. Kim Jong Il was equally elusive just like the Burmese despots Snr-Gen Than Shwe and still believed to be wielding power from behind the scenes. Both of them are tyrants and extremely dangerous person who not only starved their own people but threatened the security of the Asia-Pacific region and supported each other in crimes against humanity

The friendship between the two countries started in 1970 didn’t last long, however, because in 1983 North Korean agents snuck into Burma and attempted to assassinate visiting South Korean president Chun Doo-Hwan in Rangoon, killing several visiting South Korean ministers in the process. Burma cut diplomatic relations with North Korea. But the next administration secretly renewed the ties with North Korea as early as 1999 even though Pyongyang never apologize Burma. After the Saffron revolution Gen Thura Shwe Mann made a clandestine visit to North Korea and signed a memorandum of understanding under which North Korea agreed to build or supervise the construction of special Burmese military facilities, including tunnels and caves in which missiles, aircraft and even naval ships could be hidden. North Korea has provided Burma with Scud-type missiles, missile parts, rocket launchers, other conventional weapons and underground warfare technology. During the visit of Hillary Clinton, she asked the Burmese leadership to stop illicit military, nuclear and ballistic missile cooperation with North Korea that violates UN sanctions on Pyongyang.

Evil men, like Kim Jong Il and Than Shwe were a man of perpetual war who gloats in oppressing their own people and helped each other to do the same. The gravest international worry regarding the Burma-North Korea relationship is that Burma is attempting to develop nuclear weapons with North Korea. Kim Jong Il got a free pass from the West for his most important legacy: state-sanctioned cruelty. Burma’s cruelty over its own people under Than Shwe is the same as North Korea under Kim Jong Il that was dominated by the armed forces

Than Shwe, pronounced (?á? ?wè) in Burmese was born February 3^rd.1933 in Minzu village, near Kyaukse in central Burma is a military leader and politician, who was chairman of the State Peace and Development Council from 1992 to 2011.The secret of his success is his very lack of charisma, flair, overt ambition or obvious talent, until he became the number one. He still pulls the strings from behind because control over promotions of officers and many soldiers owe their careers to him and feel indebted. In addition, he has been a skilled and ruthless manipulator, using divide-and-rule tactics to strengthen his power base and weaken his potential rivals, within and outside the armed forces as when he was officially in power

“His human right violations have been so numerous and consistent over the past years        as to suggest that they are not simply isolated or the acts of individual misbehaviour by           middle and lower-rank officers but are rather the result of policy at the highest level,             entailing political and legal responsibility.” was the remarked given by United Nations Special Reporter Rajsoomer Lallah, on the situation of human rights in Burma.  Cold and humourless he has a “plump, sullen face”. After ordering thousands of monks to be killed in the Saffron Revolution, he went into a deep depression, and refused to eat anything except chicken rice soup. Many soldiers owe their careers to him, just as he owed his to Ne Win. Only when he had reached the very top did he assert his own power, by putting Ne Win and his family under house arrest, He has built several power bases, notably the Union Solidarity Development Association (USDA), a group of business cronies, the new capital, a new constitution and fake elections that will ensure military rule and protection for him and his family after his eventual retirement or death. An expert manipulator, who knows in playing people off each other, was not educated academically, but it will be a mistake to underestimate him or to think of him as mad or stupid. He is ruthless and brutal, but he knows what he wants and has shown a remarkable ability to get it. His very colourlessness and lack of flamboyance is the secret of his success.

The world  already have mountains of evidence of the regime’s mistreatment of political prisoners, brutalization of democracy advocates, use of forced labour and child soldiers, and vicious campaigns against ethnic minorities, including systematic rape,  summary executions of civilians and destruction of entire communities. Satellite images conducted by AAAS (American Associations for the Advancement of Science) proves that the destruction of twice as many villages as Darfur where 25 the locations showed evidence consistent of destroyed or damaged villages. He has conducted a systematic organized campaign to force ethnic nationality out of their homeland villages proving beyond doubt that that human-rights abuse already documented by many international organizations was absolutely correct. During these offensives, the Burma Army attacks and burns villages, rapes, tortures, and kills people, destroys their sources of livelihood, and lays landmines to prevent their return. There are more than two million displaced people who are far worst than Zimbabwe and the Darfur region of Sudan.

He has conscripted tens of thousands of child soldiers some as young as age 10 were forcibly recruited into the army making Burma the largest child army in the world. To supply these attacks the Burmese military regime illegally utilizes forced labour. The attacks themselves violate a host of international laws, ranging from murder to illegal property. If the international tribunals can act on Rwanda Sudan and Yugoslavia why can’t they do it in Burma? Is it because Burma’s is strategically situated between China and America in the impending New Cold War? As the UN research documents clearly and authoritatively suggest that the human rights abuses occurring in Burma are not isolated incidents. Failure by the UN Security Council to take action and to investigate these crimes could mean that violations of international criminal law will go unchecked. This still does not include family’s greed and corruption, his grandson’s antics the influence of astrology, the drugs trade, the nuclear programme, arms purchases, biological and chemical weapons, relations with China, Russia and North Korea, the cronies, the succession,  and the Cyclone Nargis.

Than Shwe and his old generals are now more focused on how to leave their ill gotten gains to their offspring and want to leave in the guaranteed Swiss banks as their predecessor Ne Win has done. But the Western sanctions have prevented them to do so. Hence they are pressuring the Thein Sein Administration to try his level best to lift the Western sanctions. Now Than Shwe seems to be obsessed in improving his prospects in the next life, apparently in the belief that piety will protect him from the karmic consequences of his actions. He seems to be hoping that death will catch up with him before the international courts do so. But as long as Than Shwe pull the string from behind especially controlling the army and did not stop an all out war in Kachin States using chemical weapons or make political settlement with the ethnic nationalities, the world should not relent its punitive actions and drive for the UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI)

Obama administration backing of (CoI) into crimes against humanity in Burma has been greeted as a major breakthrough. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself has supported the move. Of course, it would be unwise to expect the establishment of a CoI into the regime’s egregious abuses over the past two decades to result in a cathartic courtroom drama anytime soon. Justice is a painstaking process, and many obstacles lie ahead. But the wheels have been set in motion, and it is up to all of us to see that they maintain their momentum. The CoI will have the power to refer the generals to the International Criminal Court to face prosecution for their crimes. Whether it exercises this power, will depend very much on the support of the international community as on the force of the evidence and hopefully will bring justice to the merciless? Meanwhile let Than Shwe dream of turning Burma into a global military power and a proud nuclear-weapons state having a vision of the people shedding crocodile tears at his demise before he joined his two comrades (Pol Pot and Kim Jong Ill.) in a hot place (hell).

Kanbawza Win

Sanctions and other punitive actions on Burma should  be maintained by the US and  Western nations for the simple reason that the current regime is not interested in political solutions and is mounting an all out  war against the Kachin ethnic nationalities, practicing ethnic cleansing and committing gross human rights violations on all other ethnic nationalities. It even continues to use chemical weapons to wipe out this particular ethnic race. One could not comprehend of why there is a cacophony of calls to drop the sanctions and let Burma into the community of civilized nations when it is still a rogue state.

By whatever barometer it measured, be it a capitalist or a communist, the DNA of the Burmese regime is fundamentally brutal and one should mot reward such a capricious regime just for making some superficial changes as releasing just a mere one tenth of the political prisoners and continue to lie the very concept of truth by uttering that there is no political prisoners. Maintaining its rapist army and relying and encouraging the narco related companies to run the economy, not to mention child soldiers, exporting  refugees and killings its own people..

The crux of the Burmese Crisis is that its army better known as Myanmar Tatmadaw (jrefrmhwyfrawmf) wants the Myanmar race to be a perpetual colonial power over the ethnic nationalities and not the Pyidoungsu Myanmar Naing Ngan (jynfaxmifpkjrefrmEdkifiH) the Union of Burma, which the architect of modern Burma Bogyole Aung San envisaged. The Tatmadaw wants to reign supreme in perpetuity. What more proof is wanted when you join the army, you can never resign, indicating its attempt to hold perpetual control and attract the young people as “The Triumphant Elites of the Future.” a motto that hung on the gates of the Burma Military Academy. Congressman Joseph R.Pitts remarked that “The brutality of Burma’s generals against the ethnic minorities has not stopped, even during this time when they are allegedly making democratic reforms. It has used the advanced light helicopters bought from India on the ethnic nationalities.”

Obama’s willingness to promote democracy around the world – a mission that hark back to Woodrow Wilson days fell short when George W. Bush took on to Iraq, is now back on its track,  complimented with its foreign-policy move that the US is a Pacific power and will act with  forcefulness required of a superpower’s presence. In this scenario, Burma is but one nation now wary of too close an embrace by an ambitious and aggressive China, and anxious for a balancing relationship with America. Obama’s America needs to add Burma to a list of countries – Vietnam, Philippines, India, Australia, and most of the ASEAN countries that recently sought stronger ties with the United States.

Lying next to India and under the giant belly of China, Burma would be a key plank in the US strategy to reassert influence in Asia, hence the visit of Hillary Clinton to Burma. President Obama, who grew up in Indonesia, seems to understand that  the wielding of power in Asia isn’t always the visible kind – besides guns, ships, money, trade, natural resources, norco drugs (in Burma and Mexico) not to count the psyche and rationale of the generals are included in the deciding factors.  Perhaps, Burma will test American concepts of power. Two decades of US-led economic sanctions against Burma have done little to loosen the military’s grip or to help the beleaguered the ethnic nationalities.

Factually, t he US has looked to Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as the champion of democracy and rights in Burma. Obama called Ms. Suu Kyi by phone to gain her approval for Mrs. Clinton’s visit. But the US also needs to see more of where Suu Kyi looks for her legitimacy. It isn’t just enough that she is the daughter of Burma’s founder or that she helped rally protesters in the 1988 demonstrations, house arrest for one and half decade  and spends time as she can with the behind-the-scenes power in Burma i.e., the Buddhist monks. The much-revered monks were on the front lines of the 1988 protests and again in 2007. Hundreds, if not thousands have been killed or jailed. Burma’s robed clergy play a powerful role as stewards of a common faith for the Burmese majority. In Burmese history, they have often bestowed or withdrawn legitimacy to a ruler. Their power flows from their followers’ reverence for the way monks display spiritual qualities, such as compassion, humility, and pacifism. The monks’ daily walks among the people to collect alms helps make them moral leaders and identify themselves with the people. That compels the military to fear their influence – and to co-opt or suppress them. China now on the defensive sees the writings on the wall and had sent a Buddhist relic – an alleged tooth of the Buddha – to Burma in November. The tooth was carried by an elephant in high-profile processions in various cities, which delighted the strong man Than Shwe who pulls the strings from behind. It was under his directions that the ruling party and military MPs oppose the adoption of releasing the political prisoners and instead introduce new restrictive laws designed to limit political participation. This is just but one example and hence what rational can we consider to lift the Western Sanctions.

Knowledgeable Burmese who have contact with the regime had  warned that far from true changes what the regime  really wanted was to follow a path of development perfected by China. The Chinese model, at first glance, is an attractive one for repressive, autocratic leaders: by applying one foot on an economic accelerator and another on a political brake, a regime can bring a better standard of living to citizens without threatening its grip on power. The story of China’s rise over the past two decades has been one of both exuberant growth rates and non-existent political change. The regime is stealthily following this path without much ado. But the crucial difference between Burma and China is that the Chinese government has unleashed economic reforms that have enriched the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Around 130 million of China’s 1.3 billion citizens may live under the official poverty line (an assessment of $1 a day, which is lower than the World Bank’s $1.25 a day), but one-third of Burma’s 50 million-plus people subsist in poverty. In a single generation, the economic trajectory of many Chinese lives has gone from grim to upbeat. Elderly Burmese, however, remember how their country used to be one of Asia’s richest and wonder when the real change will come.But the Burmese people are committed to the superiority of the Western-style democracy rather than the proud Chinese whose 5, 000 year old civilization construe that a wise and benevolent ruler with a mandate from heaven. No doubt the new quasi civilian administration of Thein Sein can bring much needed political and social reforms only if he managed to throw off the shackles of Than Shwe whose right hand man Tin Aung Myint Oo is the Vice President. So actions should remain in place as long as the semi-authoritarian regime controls the legislative, administrative, and judicial functions of the new government.

On the other hand the regime is cynically observing the downfall of dictatorships around the globe and is moving before Burma’s long despotic reign comes to the same ugly end. The pragmatic reason for this sudden accommodation with the US is because of the bad breath of the Chinese. From their perspective Burma is placed between the devil and the deep sea and obviously if given a choice they prefer America. These hybrid military-civilian rulers are growing increasingly wary of Beijing’s geopolitical sway—not to mention China’s economic dominance over Burma’s natural resources. No doubt they are endeavoring to find a counter-balance to China. Hence an American charm approach of market reforms, release of political prisoner, stop an all out war to the ethnic nationalities compound with modicum of political liberalizations, should be enforced without any compromise.

Surely the new US engagement policy in the Southeast Asia in general, and Burma in particular, is based on a smart public diplomacy and must be calculated a policy of fairness that support the existing foundation to win the hearts and minds of the people to utilize its role in the region. The US should be highly sensitive to the development of a wider East Asian community, and its policy should not only deal with governments only but the people in the region. It must be people-centered, people-driven and people-oriented that sends an important message to the world that people in the region have the right to freedom and the right to respond and interpret what is understood as fair and unfair as appropriate to them. The people of Burma will surely agree with the WikiLeaks of how US Charge d’Affaires Larry Dinger sent a cable to Washington, “The most senior generals are looking for an escape strategy, they are getting old and want an assurances that, they and their families will retain their assets and will not be prosecuted”.

Even though “Freedom from Fear” was written by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the people of Burma, unlike the Arabs still could not conceptualise that this freedom from fear was the basic human rights. The story of the Tunisian vegetable vendor so humiliated by police that he lit himself on fire, showing the world that his right to human dignity was more precious to him than life itself was not much admired in Burma, even though Phone Maung episode of 1988 sparked that nation’s protests is still fresh on them. Compared with those of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen etc. Burma’s revolution has not been so successful because its soldiers are willing to shoot demonstrators and the monks. For now, the Burmese must continue to “live like free people in an un-free nation,” and perhaps wait for a new generation to achieve liberty. Then and only then, America should think of releasing sanctions.

An Analysis of President Obama’s Speech in the New Cold War

Kanbawza Win

The rise of China in every respect in today’s geopolitical situation has created a new bipolar world compounded by the fact that in 2000 years China, for the first time has access to the Indian via Burma due to the Burmese Junta’s survival tactics, seems that Burma will be one of the hot spots in the new impending Cold War. Admittedly neither China nor US has any real desire for a ‘New Cold War’ to start, but deep suspicion and an unwillingness to break the mould of relations are leading to the emergence of these increasingly robust hedges and weakening of moderate forces on both sides. Until now, neither the US nor China has been fully prepared to face up to the underlying divisions because they imply some difficult choices. The corporate and economics still sees China as a major new commercial opportunity, while still far short of the power to represent any sort of a challenge to the world order.

There seems to be some major conflict drivers such as (1) Taiwan, (2) Energy, disagreement over the future of the Asia Pacific, in which Burma is placed in the cross road because of the main middle east oil pipeline will be dumped in Arakan (West coast of Burma) and be piped to central China. (3)Trade relations on whom a substantial degree of accord would drastically mitigate and possibly eliminate the risk of conflict and the currency exchange rate that seriously affect trade. But there is another important aspect of  deep-rooted factors, sited more  unequivocally at the level of ‘ideas and identity’ which make it improbable that any grand bargain over these conflict drivers – or preparedness to let economic forces gradually transform the context – is really feasible, as they touch on underlying attitudes towards the global role that each side should assume; regime threats and ideological conflict; fundamental trust in the other side’s intentions; and basic understanding of what major shifts in the global and regional balance of power imply for policy.

China, meanwhile, is inclined to see, US democratisation efforts in the rest of the world as part of a hegemonic strategy and calls on China to press ahead with political reforms as manipulative attempts to destabilise the country. On the other hand China is showing increasing willingness to lend support to authoritarian regimes throughout the world, particularly Burma. Hence there is the danger for the US, is that, it may engender a situation where China, not only throws up the defences internally but is making serious efforts to stem the global democratic tide. For China, the danger is that, if it cannot tell a story that it is moving forward politically, and pursues a path of providing ostentatious support to corrupt and dictatorial regimes like Burma, it risks tainting its own political system by association, weakening the hand of international supporters who are keen to point to signs of progress, and harden an across-the-board resistance to China’s role in the world. This is an ideological dividing line that could become ever more sharply defined and is likely to be the defining feature of a new Cold War if a stable consensus cannot be reached.

President Obama in his speech at the Bali summit on Nov.18^th said. “I’ve underscored America’s commitment to the future of human rights in the region. Today I’m announcing an important step forward in our efforts to move forward on both these fronts.” this clearly depicts not only the American values but also of the civilized community, when the word Burma was used instead of Myanmar indicating that dictators cannot change the name of the country according to their whims and fancies without the consensus of the people.

. But will the quasi civilian Burmese administration (ta&jcKHt&yfom;tpdk;&) admit its denial of human rights, the persecution of democratic reformers and the brutalities against the ethnic nationalities? Even now the puppet President Thein Sein is uttering that there is no political prisoners in Burma, when indeed the international community and the people of Burma already know that there are over 1,700 prisoners of conscience. This explicitly proves that the Thein Sein administration just like the previous Junta is bent on its age old trick of “Lying the very concept of truth.” What more proof is wanted than to hoodwink the US and the world to categorise these political prisoners including political activist and the Buddhist monks as criminals? And yet a de facto Diaspora leader and leading opposition figures who had visited him dared to describe Thein Sein as sincere, tan amounting to mockery, if not  a laughing stock of the world.

Although the current Burmese administration has recently made some tentative political and economic reforms, there has been no change in their collective attitude of the country’s leaders toward the decades-old ethnic issues and is no different from that of the several military backed regimes. Separate peace talks with the different ethnic armed groups are a divide-and-rule strategy to sow discord among the respective ethnic leaders. What little democratic space has been opened is confined only to DawAung San Suu Kyi and her party in order to get recognition from the international community and of lifting of sanctions. Hence even though democracy prevails, but there will be no peace and development in the country because there is no sincerity from the government.

President Obama said that “We remain concerned about Burma’s closed political system, its treatment of minorities and holding of political prisoners” What sort of political system is still to be spelled out with a fake, dubious constitution and a sham election? The regime treatment of the ethnic nationalities makes it crystal clear that this quasi military administration has refused to recognise the Union of the country (authentic proof is not respecting the Panglong Concordat 1947) but rather is bent on Myarmarnization of the ethnic nationalities and is waging an all out war against the Kachin nationalities in the north?

The US strategists and policymakers will have to understand that all major ethnic nationalities fight against the central government in one way or another up to this day. The ethnic Karens have been fighting against the Burmese government since 1949, why? What is the rationale of taking up arms against the central government is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed for Burma to achieve peace and stability, as even now there is no ceasefire agreement between the KNU and Thein Sein Administration in spite of the informal talks. It must be remembered that Gen Aung San the architect of the Union of Burma was fully aware that a unified Burma could not be established if equality was not guaranteed for all ethnic nationalities, which were ruled under different administrative units by the British colonial administration. He solved this problem  when he said “If Burma receives one kyat, Shan will also get one kyat.” and the end result was the Panglong Concordat the basis on which the Union of Burma was formed in February 1947. The quasi government has not recognized this and this is an unmistakeable proof that the current administration is insincere.

Action speaks louder than words when it demonstrated that it is still bent of ethnic cleansing with the threat of genocide to the ethnic nationalities with chemical if not nuclear weapons. So from this hypothesis, the most basic question could be asked. Is it reconciliation between the Myanmar dictatorial regime with the Myanmar prodemocracy forces head by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi only? Why it does not include the non Myanmar (ethnic nationalities) when the struggle of Burma is both for democratic reforms and ethnic nationalities rights? One has to remember that a coin contains both head and tail as one cannot be distinguished from the other. Every country in the world has its own ethnic communities living peacefully but why the Burmese regimes are bent of ethnic cleansing? Democratic and ethnic rights must be approach simultaneously. Although individual ethnic organizations can organize informal and preliminary meetings with representatives of the Burmese regime, the political solutions will have to be discussed and sought through collective effort and representation of the ethnic nationalities, including the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC). In other words it must be what the lady (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) proposed the second Panglong Conference.

Hillary illaryClinton will be getting a pop star treatment, in visiting Burma for the first time, will not shy about raising these issues even though the longyi (Burmese sarong) wearing ex brass will not like to hear about such as the release of remaining political prisoners, the end of hostilities toward ethnic nationalities and deepening of the country’s democratization process, North Korea connections etc. But one should recollect the visit of Madeleine Albright in Nov 1995 who goes back empty handed. Obviously we have some doubts whether she can achieve anything substantial in her two days trip because this puppet quasi civilian government cannot get rid the mindset of the Junta being themselves part and parcel of the system. It should also be remembered that since 1988, many political prisoners have been released in occasional amnesties, only to be locked up again when the political climate shifted. Will this window dressing be repeated with the end of Clinton visit is just another open question?

President Obama’s description of, “We’ve seen flickers of progress in these last several weeks,” hits the nail on the head for a flicker of progress is not enough to suggest that the country is on the road to major and sustained political reforms. But at the same time in this new Cold War the US has strategic and national interests in Burma in undeniable besides the issues of democracy and human rights. Clinton will want to talk about drugs with so many narco related companies in Rangoon, the country’s shady relations with North Korea (of making nuclear weapons not to use against the US or other powers but ostensibly to use against the strong major ethnic groups like Wa, Kachin and the likes) and the non-proliferation issue including China’s growing influence and how to counter with the help of the United ‘States. To repeat President Obama’s words “However, we have always had a profound respect for the people of Burma, and the promise of their country—a country with a rich history, at the crossroads of East and West; a people with a quiet dignity and extraordinary potential. For many years, both the promise and the persecution of the Burmese people have been symbolized by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. As the daughter of Burma’s founding father, and a fierce advocate for her fellow citizens, she’s endured prison and house arrest, just as so many Burmese have endured repression… Last night, I spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi, directly, and confirmed that she supports American engagement to move this process forward.”So a clear message that more substantial reforms must be followed for people of Burma, whose hopes are now higher than they have been at any time in recent decades. But the regime’s sincerity is still far from the standard as seen by their actions and even though they want to repair the country’s relationship with the US and normalize diplomatic ties should not happen anytime soon.

The  Secretary of State is going there in person to encourage towards change in a positive direction and the US is ready to forge new era in US Burma relations which acknowledge that  positive changes that are underway. President Obama said, “For decades, Americans have been deeply concerned about the denial of basic human rights for the Burmese people. The persecution of democratic reformers, the brutality shown towards ethnic minorities, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few military leaders has challenged our conscience, and isolated Burma from the United States and much of the world” proves that there genuine interest in helping to improve the lives of people of the country in concrete ways. While it is too early to embark on the change of the mindset of the Generals, we believe that it is important to seize a political opening in the reclusive country as the Generals crave for legitimacy and recognition and Clinton’s visit will lend a helping hand to it. But she should also emphasis that the ex generals must at once stop the war against the ethnic nationalities and particularly humanitarianism and must not construe it as undermining the government’s task.  It must open the door for international relief organizations to assess the situation of IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) especially ethnic nationalities in the conflict zones

China handling of Spratly Island crisis hade scared the ASEAN countries out of their wits and that is one of the main reasons of why they brought in the US especially in the Bali summit where the two superpowers glared at each other. Burma seems to be the only stumbling bloc vis a vis China and now with the awarding of the chairperson of ASEAN in 2014, the ASEAN used its triumph card to prove to the world that ASEAN Chairperson is the highest stage of Constructive Engagement and will be happy to continue to exploits Burma’s natural and human resources, the whole of Southeast Asia, the most densely populated part of the globe will be on the side of America and the West against the ever growing Chinese.

Everybody agreed that the goal of the visit is going to continue the momentum toward greater respect for human rights, greater movement on political reform in Burma, and also, critically, greater respect for ethnic nationalities in the context of national reconciliation. But until and unless the Generals mindset change, there can be no progress. Contemporary history has proved that these sordid Generals understand punitive actions and so Sanctions must continue to remain. Another simple logic is if they themselves have put several domestic sanctions on the people of Burma why show the US lift its sanctions.

The hush hush agenda of the ex generals being on the wrongs side of the 70s or 80s, crave to have their ill gotten wealth to be put in the Western Banks (particularly Swiss banks) as they could not trust China/ Only then they would be in a position to pass it to their off springs. Here Sanctions become a stumbling block. Of course we welcome Hillary Clinton’s visit and understand that it is in the interest of the US and the world to keep the Chinese power and influence in check in the impending New Cold War but at the same time the US should continue to set benchmarks for normalizing relations with the Burmese government as they seem to understand only punitive actions like sanctions and de-recognition to drive them to the reasoning table.

The Burmese supremo Than Shwe and his bunch of generals have amassed immense wealth since 1988 but most of them being septuagenarian and octogenarian knew that their days on this earth are numbered. At the same time they realise that the rising tide of democracy cannot be stop, hence, the thought of how to transfer their ill gotten wealth to their near and dear ones become a great problem. They also knew that the Young Turks in the army, who are now much exposed to the outside world, could not guarantee them. Besides the precedents of what they had done to Ne Win is still fresh on them and it can be easily done by the young Generals to them?

. One of the best way to maintain their ill gotten goods, once they leave this earth, is to put it in the Swiss banks and in the banks of some other trustworthy Western Banks.Even though they have constructed mansions in China and dumped some of their wealth they are still not at ease, because in their hearts of heart they knew that China could not be trusted as they have seen of what the Chinese have done to Slobodan Milosevic who had transferred his wealth of £145 million in Shanghai and Hongkong Banks with the help of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (that is why the Americans deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy on May 7^th 1999).. Now when the tide has turned the Chinese say that this wealth belong to the people of Serbia and transferred back the money and kicked the Milosevic family out.

The second alternative is to give their offspring a good education in the West but they could not send their children because of the sanctions and a few who mange to escape the scrutiny of West were later apprehended with the help of the Burmese dissidents abroad and forced to return home. The Western Sanctions has clearly spelt out the names of theses Burmese rogues and its accomplice and they could do nothing against the civilized world. The punitive actions of the West has far outweigh the Constructive Engagement of the Asians, who placed their values more on wealth and dictatorship rather than on democracy and human rights in dealing with the pariah regime. Hence the regimes great obsession is to remove the Western sanctions by any means. They also knew that the only way to remove this, Western punitive actions is to yield up their authoritarian instinct. So the leopard has tries their level best to change the spots, but the instinct is such that they still there cannot be hidden.

Currently the United States and the European Union sees encouraging new signs of openness in isolated Burma but after more than half a century of (to be exact from 1962 up to this day) of harsh and tyrannical military rule, under different guise is still a long way to shed its pariah status The latest action of releasing less than one tenth of the political prisoners, the scrapping of the controversial Myisone Dam under pressure can be measure as a sign towards more openness. But their sincerity, openness and good will to the people of Burma can be measured by their actions, like launching an all out war against the ethnic nationalities in their ethnic cleansing polices by not recognizing the Pangolong Concordat of 1947 which made the modern Union of Burma that promise every ethnic people residing in the Union of Burma be treated equally. The military dominated by the Myanmar race is now bent on the exterminating the non Myanmar races by various means including rapes and extra-judicial killing and systematic persecution. What more proof is wanted when it change the country name from the Union of Burma to Myanmar compelling the people and the international community to recognise that dictators can change the name of the country and its flag according to their whims and fancies. This clearly proves that the regime is bent on ethnic cleansing and is endeavouring to make them the second citizens.

Outsiders are not so good at peering inside autocracies of dictators as it usually pretend at reform to tighten their stranglehold with the help of Western aid and trade. The puppet new government under the master mind of Than Shwe has made a well calculated move to win more friends in the West. Secure the ASEAN Chairperson as it endeavours to eliminate sanctions and deflect a call for a UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into crimes against humanity?

The sincerity of the regime can be measured in the release of just a mere about one tenth of the 2000 political prisoners and an all out war to the ethnic nationalities, with the help of China and using chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This shows disrespect for the International Community, which is starting to believe in their initiatives for a change to the better. It also tantamount as an insult also to the UN representative Vijay Nambiar the US special envoy Michael Posner (Assistant Secretary of State for the Department of Human Rights and Labour), who are in the country now, and the Indonesia Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa the current ASEAN chairperson who made a recent visit.

Besides Burma had signed the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) in 1993 and by this action clearly proves that the regime is insincere and did not care the perspective of international community. Due to violent military offensives more than 30,000 civilians have to flee and hide for their life. These vicious military offensives with gross human rights violations, rapes of women and destruction of livelihood of the people prove the authenticity of war crimes and crimes against humanity. On the other hand the ethnic nationalities are ready for dialogue if the regime sincerely wants to resolve the political problems. In July this year, the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) wrote a letter on behalf of the ethnic nationalities, urging him to hold dialogue for peace. However, as there has been not only any response but only launching of major offensives with increasing ferocity shows its true colour and ulterior motive of not being sincere to change.

In this window dressing of change the regime has merely changed their strategy, previously their enemy Number One was Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who would threatened their livelihood but now their enemy No 1 has become the ethnic nationalities. The regime continues to solve this ethnic problem through military means for decades without success. This forced the ethnic nationalities no choice but to take up arms in order to defend themselves and with this rate they are doing now it is geared for another hundred year’s war. There can be no peace in a multi-ethnic nation that ignores the fundamental rights of its ethnic nationalities.

On the other hand the regime is almost bending over backwards in wooing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi led National League for Democracy to re-register by changing the party registration law, so that it may lend legitimacy to the regime for more international recognition and lifting of sanctions which the master mind Than Shwe believes could be achieved via Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. But this also means the NLD to abandon the 2009, Shwegondaing Declaration of democratic norms and most importantly the moral obligation and Panglong Agreement of which Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s father had done. The big question is will the NLD re-registers while the Burmese Army is raping, gassing and murdering the ethnic nationalities? The only thing that Burma’s opposition movement has now is its principles. Once they are sacrificed, though, they will be gone forever.

ASEAN countries under cover of Constructive Engagement, which is in fact exploiting Burma’s human and natural resources is urging the new regime to release the political prisoners to be fully qualified for its chairperson, while some of the international NGOs with an economic eye such as Myanmar Egress and the likes including think tanks like ICG and other academics born with a silver spoon in their mouth like Than Myint U and the self appointed farang expert that knows nothing of the intense suffering of the people of Burma are all cheering the new regime and calling the West to reward the regime.. Again some dissidents who put in their trust to the new puppet choose to go back to lend a helping hand while the bulk of the ethnic nationalities and the entire people of Burma are bearing the brunt of the ethnic cleansing and the tyranny of the regime.

Admittedly U.S. sanctions alone have not yielded satisfactory results in Burma, but also we must know that a persuasive argument have never being tried in sanctions policy involving the full weight of American diplomacy. Certainly, removing sanctions now would do more to bless the superficial changes that have taken place since 2010 in Burma than they deserve. The Burmese Junta still maintain an iron grip on its people, and continues to carry out a foreign policy that is inimical to US interests

The U.S. already made some concessions in meeting the representatives of the regime but it should simply push the: rule of law, respect for internationally recognized human right standards, and stability, to take demonstrable steps toward developing a genuine democratic system, permitting real political dissent, further loosening restrictions on the people of Burma. A minimum requirement is the release of 2,000 or so political prisoners, many of whom have been tortured and mistreated. The regime also should stop stifling the nation’s media and political parties, protecting basic human rights, combating its drug trade, and make known its nuclear ties with North Korea as the intended nuclear weapons is not for the country’s defence but to use in the ethnic cleansing especially the WA whose armed forced can match the regime’s army.

Then and only then, the West can make a more informed judgment about the proper response of lifting sanctions. Hence the US must continue to deny this regime the legitimacy it craves by continuing sanctions, and remain in place until true democratic reform comes to the people of Burma for Hillary Clinton said. “We want to be guided by our values and our own interest in ways that, regardless of the trajectory over the next decade, people will know the United States was on the side of democracy, on the side of the rule of law….And that will I hope be a strong antidote to the voices of either fatalism or extremism.”

——————- Watch the Video here ——————

By Henri-André Aye

There is a growing trend toward manifestation against the tyrants in the developing world. In several countries, people assist in multiplication of social movements, often initiated by the youths, reclaiming more freedom, justice, and equal rights. These movements are the sign of willingness to change the governing system. Burma is one of those countries. Rather than compromising with the opposition and the discontented youths, the ruling class in Burma usually takes heavy-handed methods and the adversaries — be they clergy or student — are imprisoned.

In October 2011, under the presidential amnesty, thousands of prisoners have been freed in Burma. The West and some organizations such as International Crisis Group [ICG] rushed to jangle the song of liberation. Alas, most of the liberated prisoners are convicted criminals but only a very few political prisoners have been freed. Even one prominent prisoner of conscience who has been freed said that he soon became disillusioned with the government’s amnesty because most of the conscience-colleagues are still being locked up.

My thoughts turn to Ashin Gambira, one of the quartet of young monks, who led the Sangha Revolution in 2007, and was arrested soon afterward, and is still serving in a prison in Kalay, a small town in Upper Burma. Most of the ethnic prisoners of conscience including the Shan leader Khun Htun Oo, the entire 88 generation leaders including Min Ko Naing, and the other important prisoners of conscience all remain behind bars in various prisons across the country.

These prisoners of conscience are the most beautiful people as Dr. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross — psychiatrist, humanitarian, author, and pioneer of bereavement and hospice — wrote, “The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen”.

A hymn with verses in honor of these beautiful people who have been unjustifiably incarcerated because of their political conviction suddenly enters into my thoughts.

Hello darkness my old friend

I’ve come to talk with you again

Because a vision softly creeping

Left its seeds while I was sleeping

And the vision that was planted in my brain

Still remains

Within the sound of silence

Simon & Garfunkel popular song in the 1960s carries profound meaning for the prisoners of conscience in Burma, particularly those who are serving their sentence in solitary confinement. They have nobody to talk to but darkness. The lyrics said the people who lost loved ones, the visions and memories are like seeds in their minds.

Some in the West argue that in Burma, at present, the old clique has retired, the civilian government is in charge with no strings attached, political change is on the right track etc. This is just a naïveté as they fail to perceive the strings and conniving steps behind the change. Indeed, it takes place but as a token rather than a substantial change. And those steps are something subtle or sophisticated but not indecipherable.

Given the fact that Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika transformed the Soviet Union into Putin’s Russia that is still protective of the authoritarian regimes — until recently Libya and to a certain extent, Syria — it is probable that the Myanmar transformation could lead to openness in economy and remain limited or disciplined one in politics.

The new president in Naypyitaw acted in good faith in restoring national reconciliation in the country. However, he is not in full control in doing so. Some indicated that the diehards of the old regime are trying to prevent the reconciliatory steps taken by the president. I don’t think those diehards have enough power to do so, even if there is any contention between the diehards and the reformists.

In the democratic countries, when an elected executive — either president or prime minister — retires, it means that he or she completely retreats from political scene and public life. This is not the case in the undemocratic world. The despots never retire until their last breath.

Let us not forget that the new government is not an elected one, but a selected administration.  Most of the parliamentarians are selected, so are the entire members of the present government. According to an acquaintance who has been elected to the parliament in Naypyitaw from Rangoon, election campaign was not necessary for them as they had been designated prior to the so-called election.

Those who had served in the previous government, but have not been selected to serve in the incumbent cabinet, remain in Naypyitaw. They are not allowed to go back to Rangoon even though they have residence, family and friends there.  Are they not entirely free to move where they would like to? Do they need to stay in the new capital in order to maintain the balance of demographic chart or else?

It is not unusual for us to observe the staged political events in Burma since quite a long time, which, I think, are still in practice.  Burma badly wants to achieve two objectives at present: ending the economic sanctions by the West thus alleviating the burden of kowtowing to China; winning the ASEAN chair in 2014 thus strengthening its political legitimacy at home and abroad. So, they are staging political events to this end.

As recently as a month or so ago, a national race affairs and internal peacemaking committee was formed that is mainly made up of former military officers. I would rather say it is a political gimmick as it would go nowhere without freeing the ethnic political leaders who are languishing in jails and putting an end the war on the ethnic minorities. You cannot sing a song of peace while severely beating a weak person.

I am neither exaggerating nor inciting racial hatred but readers will be more sensitized to the sufferings of our people if I repeat a Shan villager quoted in a report by EarthRights International, “The Burmese military treats the Shan people so harshly because we are not the same ethnicity as the Bamar, we are being valued less than a tin milk by the Burmese army, they looked down on Shan people and do not want to recognize us as human”.

Tomas Ojea Quintana, UN rapporteur on human rights in Burma, addressed the UN General Assembly a few days ago in presenting his latest report on Burma, “A pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights has existed in Myanmar for many years. I continue to receive allegations of such violations to date. Measures to ensure justice and accountability, including access to the truth, are essential for Myanmar to face its past and current human rights challenges and to move forward toward national reconciliation”.

Quintana also added that the ongoing tension in ethnic border areas and the Burma’s army ongoing conflict with some armed ethnic groups, particularly in Shan, Kachin, and Karen States, continue to engender serious human rights violations, including attacks against civilian populations, extra-judicial killings, sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, internal displacement, land confiscations, recruitment of child soldiers, forced labor and portering.

It is not only the prisoners of conscience who are being kept in the darkness, many ethnic people living in the areas where the military are waging war have the same fate being in the darkness as well. Martin Luther King jr. said in “Strength to love” in 1963, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that”.

Why can’t the government free all the political prisoners and put an end the war on the ethnic people? What are they afraid of? Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. If you cannot drive out hate with love and compassion, the cycle of suffering will never end. It is time to end the suffering, without delay and unconditionally.

Kanbawza Win

In May, Osama bin-Laden was shot dead that sent the relations between Pakistan and US into a tailspin and obviously Pakistan, still depending on billions of dollars in civilian and military aid from Washington began to look Beijing as an alternative for a strategic counter weight to India. This was confirmed when Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met the Chinese Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu and thank him for  $1.2 aid for law enforcement materials, when the US was accusing of the Pakistan intelligence ISI having links with the militants. But reading between the lines the Chinese response was lukewarm. A Chinese mining company, China Kingho Group pulled out of in the Southern Sindh province of Pakistan worth some $19 billion dollars plus, the biggest investment in Pakistan, citing security reasons, cannot not be comparable to the force withdrawal of Myitsone Dam of Burma in Kachin state worth a mere $3`6 billion. What is the catch?

Chinese Arm Twisting

Originating in a meeting between the Junta chief Senor-Gen Than Shwe and Chinese President Hu Jintao in April 2005, at the Asian-African in Jakarta, Indonesia, Than Shwe has ploy with the idea that electricity from Myitsone Dam hydro-power plant would be sold to China. But the Burmese military top brass, from their initial survey, knew that the negative impact of the planned project would be greater than its advantages and many top generals were unhappy with the dam construction but being cowards dare not speak out.

The Junta then launch a military offensive against the MNDAA (Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army), the Kokang Narco group led by Peng Jiasheng, for not agreeing to the Junta’s proposed Border Guard Force plan, in spite of Chinese authority’s frequent requests not to use violent means in dealing with the ethnic armed groups based on the Sino-Burmese border. However, the Generals want to prove their independence to the people of Burma and to the international community and did not care. Beijing was furious with the regime for not respecting its request and informally suggested that it would reconsider its support in the international arena and threatened not to use the veto in the UN Security Council. This signal sends cold chills through the spines of the Generals who knew the consequences. Hence, to placate the matter, the supremo Than Shwe sent a delegation led by Shwe Mann where China skilfully twisted the arms of the Junta, to sign the three Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) including the Myitsone Dam (the other two were Arakan Gas Pipeline from the Bay of Bengal and the Economic &.Technical Cooperation).So far money has make monkey dance. But all that glitters is not gold.

The country’s rulers have succumbed to China’s demand with the sole purpose of staying  in power, however the people of Burma are still inclined to think that this giant neighbour to the north as enemy number one, because they clearly recollect the 1967 Chinese riots over the wearing of Mao Zedong and badge. For decades the resistances forces in northern Burma including KIA were funded by Chinese Communists just across the border.  Under cover of the Communist Party of Burma (CPB) the PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) had made aggression in the Sino-Burmese border areas. Many a Burmese solder have made a supreme sacrifices. Even me, then a young administrative officer in Public Works Corporation was forced to fight alongside of the government when at a time I was visiting the Kunlong Bridge project was surrounded by the Chinese in Northern Shan State. In fact many of these current generals have fought should to shoulder with us. But as of now, these generals who have shed their uniforms have become members of the under the quasi civilian administration have forgotten their comrades in arms who have made supreme sacrifices for the country and people with their blood and sweat.

They knew very well that China has controlled the movements of Burmese via the CPB while allowing ethnic armed groups under its influence to enter ceasefire agreements with the regime as it needs stability to exploit Burma’s natural and human resources. The People’s Republic of China was happy as long as Burma’s internal affairs remained complex and the regime faced more and more pressure from the West. When a neighbour is eager to cash in exchange for natural resources, they readily did so as the nature of the Chinese mentality is that according to the Burmese saying “will hack his own mother brow if gold comes out of it”. Last year alone 40% of foreign investment in Burma came courtesy of China. Chinese companies have taken this golden opportunity and have tried to control the country’s economy by pledging to support its rulers in the international arena. So whenever Chinese leaders visited Burma, they reportedly ask Burmese government officials to protect their fellow Chinese living in the country and protect the Chinese companies which tantamount to a sort of the Chinese economic imperialism, if not colonialism without empire. Now with the postponement of the dam project for 10 years it faced the real test. No doubt China Power Investment Corp., which is financing; China Gezhouba Group Corporation, involved in construction of the dam; and China Southern Power Grid Corp that will buy most of the power generated will be expecting a handsome compensation from the Burmese government.

Burmese National Scene

Myitsone in Burmese means the confluence of the two rivers Mae Kha and Mali Kha which combine together in the country’s northern Kachin state to form the mighty Irrawaddy River, the life blood of Burma since time immemorial. This is Geography.

U Myint, a leading Burmese top economic adviser to Burma President Thein Sein, already admitted that he does not support the Myitsone Dam Project, but kept “Hush Hush” by the Press Scrutiny and Registration Division for obvious reasons. The dam is being built less than 100 km from a major tectonic fault line, and if an earthquake causes the massive dam to break then the loss of life would be catastrophic. This is Technology.

The Myitsone Dam Project has already displaced thousands of residents and will displace many more once it is completed and 766 sq km (larger than Singapore) are flooded to create a giant reservoir. In addition, the  building a dam at the source of Burma’s most important waterway will harm the lives of millions of people not just in Kachin State, but throughout the country with enormous negatives impact on social and environment. This is ecology.

It also has served as a kind of fulcrum of various political forces. Even though” You’re most obedient servant,” Minister for Electric Power, Zaw Min vowed that the dam would be built despite any public disapproval, Minister for Environmental Conservation and Forestry Win Tun apposed it and Soe Thein, Minister for Industry 1 and 2, question whether this project served “the national interest”. A major split in the ruling hierarchy. This is internal struggle.

Critics have rightly pointed out that the current government should adhere to Chapter 1, Article 45 of the junta-drafted 2008 Constitution that says, “The Union shall protect and conserve the natural environment.” This clearly demonstrates that the regime does not respect its own constitution.

Fierce criticisms have been raised about the Myitsone Dam Project from the general public who want action to save the vital Irrawaddy River. Many well-known artists, writers, poets, singers, environmentalists and social workers numbering 1,600 including the lady has signed a petition to Thein Sein to reconsider the decision. “Save the Irrawaddy Art Exhibition” on Sept 22^nd attended by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s Pro-democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize Winner, who told that, “People need to unite if they are to achieve what they want,” a message implying that the campaign to stop the Myitsone Dam Project could also become a rallying point for Burma’s opposition forces and ethnic nationalities in their efforts to bring democracy and human rights to the country. This is politics.

But the most important aspect is that the Myitsone Dam Project is also the confluence of the pro democracy movement and that of the ethnic nationalities fighting for autonomy within the Union. If it continues, the campaign to save the Irrawaddy River may also become a campaign to rid the country a new civilian government that has stage-managed elections by the military and its proxies who still wield power and control most top posts as well as to get rid of the  Chinese influence and reclaim the nation’s natural resources. More than half a century of misrule by the military regime has squandered and depleted Burma’s wealth of natural resources for the benefit of China and an elite few in Burma, leaving many to wonder whether all of the country’s resources will all be gone by the time true democracy is achieved. With the Burmese public expressing dual outrage over the imminent threat to their beloved Irrawaddy River and the increased dominance of China, the Thein Sein administration have no choice but to bow to the peoples’ will and suspend Myitsone Dam Project in order to prevent any major political event in Burma just at the time they were trying to project an image of reform and stability to the outside world. The last thing the generals and ex-generals want is to see mass public protests, which would force them to give up their authoritarian grain and allow the protests to take place, setting a precedent for the future, or show their true colors and crack down as they have in the past.

View from this perspective the halting the Myitsone Dam Project does not mean the regime has changed its spots even though in the economic groups and some neighbouring countries will hail it as the latest sign of change.

Why So Craved about Sanctions?

Than Shwe and his bunch of generals have amassed immense wealth all these years but being septuagenarian, if not octogenarian knew that their days on this planet are numbered; how to transfer their ill gotten wealth to their near and dear ones become a great problem. They also knew that the Young Turks who are now much exposed to the outside world could not guaranteed as they may done to him like what he had done to his mentor Ne Win. Hence the

best way is to give their offspring is education but they have depleted the education system of the country in order to control the country and so they are very desirous of sending their offspring to the West and storing their ill gotten wealth in Swiss banks and other Western countries. Here sanctions became a stumbling block. as they could not send their offspring for further studies or to put their money in Western banks.

Even though they have their mansions in China and dumped some of their wealth, still in their hearts of heart knew could not be trusted as they have seen of what the Chinese have done to Slobodan Milosevic and his ambitious wife Mira who had transferred their wealth to China where the Chinese media hailed him as a folk hero. Milosevic’s son Marko one of the richest and most violent criminals in Serbia is encompassing a construction business, and real estate in Shanghai and Hong Kong had dumped. £145 million. The US knew all these and that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is helping them and that was why they deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy on May 7^th 1999. Now when the tide is turn the Chinese say that this wealth belong to the people of Serbia and transfer the money and kicked the family out.

The Burmese generals clearly see their picture and writings on the wall and hence their obsession is to have the sanctions remove by hook or by crook. It still has to take several concrete steps towards reforms such as releasing of 2000 plus political prisoners, only about a 220 so political prisoners including comedian Zarganar, ethnic Shan leader Sao Hso Ten, Win Mya Mya and Su Su Nway while important leaders like Khun Htun Oo, Min Ko Naing and Ko Ko Gyi or Buddhist monk Ashin Gambira, who can play a role in reforming the country and achieving national reconciliation, are not included among the 6,359 the released prisoners. But they knew that without releasing this prisoner of conscience they have little or no chance to lift the sanctions and of course when Marty Natalegawa, the Indonesia’s Foreign Minister and ASEAN Chairperson visit Naypyidaw they will release the second batch in an attempt to kill two birds with a stone.

The State Department seems to take credit, indicating that its “nuanced diplomacy” – encouraging the pro democracy movement, while at the same time “engaging” with the regime was crucial in Burma’s reversal Indeed, the project’s suspension was announced a week after Burmese Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin became the first regime high official in memory to visit Washington. But success may prove to be short-lived. China, reportedly livid, is adamantly trying to push the generals to revert to their default mode of ignoring their citizens and kowtowing to China. So the Obama administration had better stick to its guns. Such a victory would show the region that America is willing to confront China, reversing a dangerous trend. Beijing has scared the entire neighbourhood, and US allies are losing faith in the American ability to protect them from its bullying.
No doubt the United States is right in saying that it was an encouraging signs of progress while insisting on more substantive reform before changing policy. Outsiders are not so good at peering inside autocracies of dictators as it usually pretend at reform to tighten their stranglehold with the help of Western aid and trade. Thein Sein made a well calculated move to win more friends in the West as it endeavours to eliminate sanctions and deflect a call for a UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into crimes against humanity? That is why the best way to judge a regime is by its actions.

Admittedly U.S. sanctions alone have not yielded satisfactory results in Burma, a persuasive argument have never being tried in sanctions policy involving the full weight of American diplomacy. Certainly, removing sanctions now would do more to bless the superficial changes that have taken place since 2010 in Burma than they deserve. The Burmese Junta still maintain an iron grip on its people, and continues to carry out a foreign policy that is inimical to US interests and the US must continue to deny this regime the legitimacy it craves by continuing sanctions, and remain in place until true democratic reform comes to the people of Burma.

The U.S. should simply push the: rule of law, respect for internationally recognized human right standards, and stability, to take demonstrable steps toward developing a genuine democratic system, permitting real political dissent, further loosening restrictions on the people of Burma. A minimum requirement is the release of 2,000 or so political prisoners, many of whom have been tortured and mistreated. The regime also should stop stifling the nation’s media and political parties, protecting basic human rights, combating its drug trade, and make known its nuclear ties with North Korea. Then and only then, the West can make a more informed judgment about the proper response of lifting sanctions.

Quasi Civilian Government Still Harbours Ill Will

At the UNGA, the regime’s spokesman has admitted the military leaders are responsible for Burma’s backwardness. Their false ideology and selfishness, their ignorance and superstition, their refusal to listen to scholars and experts and their failure to recognize changes in the international arena have all contributed to the country’s decline. Now they are attempting to hoodwink the international community to give them a second chance. But their true colour was revealed when they deliberately refused to recognize the Panglong Accord of 1947 which makes the modern Union of Burma. Instead of real Genuine Union of Burma, they are imposing the Myanmar imperialism, if not outright colonialism over the ethnic nationalities, which are the basic cause of ethnic nationalities grievances, and is in the course of luring the pro democracy movement to its side while without yielding any substantial compromise either to the ethnic nationalities or for genuine national reconciliation with the people of Burma.

The comedian  Zargana on his release said that the government does not have a true desire to release all political prisoners as they do not have the will or change of hearts for real national reconciliation, peace or democracy. Dr Zarni comments that “Hard facts on the ground speak louder than the military’s institutionalized fiction that the senior and junior generals vis-à-vis civilians are brilliant nation-builders” holds no water and cannot be construed as a quest for peace and ethnic equality or as a political solution to the non-Myanmar, ethnic nationalities which has a grievances since the making of modern Burma. It still has to recognize the legitimate rights of the ethnic nationalities by negotiating with NUFC and recognizing Panglong Accord… So the main aim of this “small changes” was the lifting of Western sanctions and confirmation of its chairmanship of ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) in 2014 – which would go a long way towards normalising the country’s international position. This uniform shed paranoid generals are still power maniacs and did not harbour a pale of patriotism as they are

not genuinely interested in building a democracy or improving the human rights situation and what more proof is wanted when there have been three broken ceasefires (with the Kachin, Karen and Shan minorities),a massive increase in army attacks on ethnic groups, and a sharp rise in gang rapes involving women and children. The even did not admit that there are political prisoners, which clearly indicates that the human rights situation is getting worse.
Relaxing some media controls was part of an attempt to regain international legitimacy and neutralise the NLD and even its ardent supporter the ICG agree there is a long way to go before reform triumphs in Burma. And while ASEAN may use recent upbeat signals to justify their long-held, ill-disguised wish to normalise relations, Western governments are treading carefully so far.US official spokesperson, Mark Toner, said “We haven’t changed our basic approach. Our policy is still a dual track approach with sanctions but also with principled engagement.”

Bilateral Relations

The question now is what the suspension will mean for relations between Burma and its main political ally, China. The answer is short and simple. Nothing will happen; the bilateral relations will remain as usual and will work out smoothly as before. The two regimes are birds of a feather. In their hearts of hearts they love dictatorships, the latter openly declares to be the dictatorships of the proletariat while the new quasi civilian government orchestrated by the Burmese Junta is a continuation of the military dictatorship since 1962. At least China is not shy about it and demonstrates them by always propping up dictators of the world especially Africa and Asia and the latest being Syria whereas China use its veto but Burma continue to lie the very concept of truth.

Since the mysterious bombs exploded at Myitsone Dam Project some fatal, unnerved Chinese workers and realised the unstable security situation. The Chinese labourers would often leave for weeks at a time, and the project fell behind schedule. The Kachin and the government troops are in a fierce undeclared war. It was hardly the most stable working environment for Chinese dam workers. In fact, a leaked internal document appears to indicate that the Chinese wanted to pull out of the project, despite the promise of electricity for Yunnan. Now with the Burmese President’s remarkable announcement, the secret wishes of the Chinese have come true. Besides the project has not received high-level support as an internal report by the China Power Investment Corporation in 2009, said that its size the world’s fiftieth tallest dam piping China’s mammoth Three Georges Dam was unnecessary and called for it to be scrapped.

It seems to be the connivance of the two governments as the new quasi civilian government is just waiting for the outrage to die down and the mega Myitsone Dam Project will be reworked into six more hydropower dams, as well as crude oil and natural gas pipelines linking Burma’s Arakan coast with China’s South-western city of Kunming, via Shan State. The gas pipeline will transport natural gas from Burma’s lucrative offshore site, known as the Shwe project, to refineries in China. Along with these projects, China and Burma will establish a railway link as well as a trade and transportation corridor connecting China with the Indian Ocean. China wants to ensure the strategically more important oil and gas pipelines?
Beijing still has a lot to gain from Burma’s untapped natural resources and also needs to successfully implement its other investments and cannot afford to alienate such an economic and strategic ally now that China is endeavouring to diversify its sources of oil and gas and guard against potential shipping disruptions in the Malacca Strait.

One has to remember that Burma is the first country to recognize China outside the Communist bloc and the PLA has helped the Burmese army to drive out the remnants of the KMT at operations Mekong in the late 50s. But relation detonated after the Chinese riots in 1967 as describe earlier but after Mao`s death in 1976 and pragmatic leader Deng Xiaoping supporting revolutionary in the regions is not in Beijing`s interest ended the Chinese support to CPB and economic cooperation started. After 1988, China fully supported the dictators supplying a large military hardware to the tune of 4.2 billion and sending military advisers. Cross border trade boom

Burma is also strategically important to China, because it is only through Burma that China has access to the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, and Chinese naval vessels made port calls in Burma for the first time last year.  For these reasons, China also does not want to overreact to the Myitsone Dam Project suspension and push Burma into the arms of the West.

Also it is important to remember that the greedy China needs Burma as Beijing has heavily invested in Burma’s energy sector and will continue to do so.

Furthermore, Thein Sein knows that Beijing will want to maintain its status quo as his government’s foremost ally, to prevent Burma from growing closer to the Western powers that are showing a strong interest in engaging Naypyidaw. For his part, Thein Sein also knows that he needs China’s backing, because Burma remains under international sanctions—despite tentative praise from the West over the Myitsone Dam decision and his engagement with the Aung San Suu Kyi

It is just a sign of growing confidence on the part of Burmese leaders that the country’s expansive untapped natural resources and its strategic location between India and China could make it hard for China to penalize the country or otherwise divert investment elsewhere. With the decision to halt the dam, the “Chinese are reminded that the regime is its own regime,” The urgency to display independence from Beijing has increased as the new puppet regime endeavor to win more support from local citizens and demonstrate to skeptical Western leaders that the country is heading toward more democratic reform. It also forced China to back more environmentally friendly investments

China is also important because of the Myanmar hegemony wars with ethnic nationalities near the Sino-Burmese border, and to successful implementation of Myanmar colonialism over these ethnic nationalities will require Chinese cooperation as China’s influence over such groups as the 20,000-strong United WA State Army and the 10,000-strong Kachin Independence, can’t be neglected by Naypyidaw. It seems to prove that this cancellation is a Beijing- Naypyidaw collaborating with each other, to defuse resistance the resistance of Myitsone Dam Project

Politically as well as economically, Burma still needs China. For more than two decades, Beijing has been the one backing the Burmese regime whenever it was faced with international pressure and condemnation for its brutal clampdowns on civilians and opposition forces. Burma’s ruling leaders knew they could count on Beijing’s unequivocal support in the international arena.

The only thing which we can surely says is that the days for China using a dominating tone over  the Burmese government, and concentrating only on its own economic interests and not for the people in Burma are gone forever. Perhaps making the monkey dance without love and sincerity to win the hearts has taught them bitter lessons. In other words the Chinese who want to continue to do business in Burma have to do their best not to increase anti-Chinese sentiment among Burmese people; it needs to comply with the desires of the Burmese people.  Anything that affects the future of the Irrawaddy River must be considered a national cause and its fate cannot be decided by any individual or political party

As a rising super power and one of the largest countries in the world, China has more responsibility to preserve that tradition and not to let it be destroyed by inordinate greed. China may feel that it is being unfairly treated by the very people that it has aided in committing a long list of crimes against their own citizens—not only indirectly, by giving them diplomatic cover and the economic means to ride out decades of punitive sanctions, but also directly, by supplying them with weapons of mass oppression under the smokes screen of   “win-win” arrangements that fully respect the sovereignty of other countries.

The Chinese thinking that governments, no matter how illegitimate, should be regarded as monolithic embodiments of this sovereignty and do business with them. Being always profit motivated always construe that this situation should be exploited, rather than as a problem to be corrected. Propping up reprehensible regimes, particularly those with control over natural resources, has become a cornerstone of Chinese Foreign Policy should be rethink Its practice of embracing pariah regimes to cut deals highly favourable to China’s interests, and  not to those of local people, is not only amoral opportunism but is not conducive to be a benevolent superpower. This monkey business not only applied to Burma but also in Africa where China has invested US$ 3 billion in Zambia, over the past three years and when elected President Michael Sate, described Chinese investors as “infesters” they were mad.  Very lately China has offered to sell more than $200 million in weapons and ammunition to Muammar Gaddafi is just some of the classic examples. China must stop riding roughshod over the rule of law when it suits its purposes, and learn to respect the rights of other countries’ citizens, and not just the illegitimate claims of their self-appointed rulers. They must win the heart of the people of Burma.

It came to no surprise and is well expected that ICG, (international Crisis Group) came up on the side of the Burmese military bullies against the entire people of Burma and the international community as it had always done, since the Burmese Junta assumes power in 1988. But I would humbly like to point out some of the fallacies.

(1)   The conclusions of the ICG seems to recognize that the current Burmese regime’s “Dubious Constitution” and its’ “Sham Elections” to be legally binding and that the people of Burma and the international community should recognized the done deal, implementing Machiavelli’s theory of “the end justifies the means.”

(2)    It seems to recognize the theory that dictators can change the name of the country and the national flag without the consent of the people and the country because ICG continue to use the word Myanmar and not Burma? The word Myanmar is phonetically wrong. It comes from the word Mrama a South Indian word because the Burman believe that they originated from India as the Burmese saying goes in Burmese as Myan Ma Ah Sa Ta Kaung Ka (jrefr,tpwaumif;u). Hence it should be spell MYANMA without the R as the en MA is pronounced softly in the English word of MOTHER. Besides in the contemporary history of Burma during the independence struggle against the British, Bogyoke Aung San, founder of modern Burma stated with Doh Burma A Se Ayone (‘dk hArmtpnf;t&kH and not Doh Myanmar A Se A Yone (‘dk hjrefrm tpnf;t&kH) . It must be remembered that founded on 1947 Pangong Concordat where most of the ethnic leaders and people willingly decided to join the Union of Burma of its free will and hence the word MYANMAR is politically wrong. So the name MYANMAR is both phonetically and politically wrong.

(3)   As announced that the current regime have repudiated the Panglong Agreement which explicitly means that it does not recognize the Union of Burma and make it appear that Myanmar was a monolithic whole since time immemorial save the British interlude and that the ethnic nationalities were a rebellious bent on Balkanization hindering the creation of a nation state. The ICG seems to believe this hypothesis and hence unwittingly encouraging the ethnic cleansing policy imposed by the Myanmar over the Non Myanmar.

(4)   Yes! Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Ambassador Derek Mitchell, Secretary of State for Southeast Asia and Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell have all admitted that there is a possibility of change, but so far there not a single concrete step has been taken in terms of the release of more than 2000 political prisoners placed in inhuman conditions. Most importantly there is no cessations of offensives to the resistance ethnic nationalities, not to mention restoration of basic civil liberties or lifting the media censorship.

(5)   ICG statement reads “The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) seems convinced that Myanmar is heading in the right direction and may soon confer upon it the leadership of the organization for 2014” One cannot comprehend this statement when the Indonesia Foreign Minister and the group’s chairperson Marty M Natalegawa is still yet to go to Burma for a fact finding mission before putting up to the ASEAN Board for decision. We do hope that ICG is not keen on putting US in an awkward position knowing full well that Burma by then will have the play the role of the coordinator between America and ASEAN?

(6)    Even though ICG is a not profiting, non partisan and prestigious organization depending on the dole out of the corporate, one will not dare not to make any wild accusations it, but our interest is very much aroused when its made its assertions in flowery Burmese, when writing so much about Africa or Arabs none of them are in their native tongues? In view of the fact that Burma has a surplus petro dollars via the oil companies we pray that you are not trying to wean out the Burmese pro democracy forces from the ethnic  nationality brethren.

Perhaps ICG should not construe Burma to be Brussels’ Noire Chocolat (sans sucre et lait), a black chocolate for diabetics, as it is not like by the majority of the people.

************************************************
ICG Media Release & Report

Myanmar: Major Reform Underway

Jakarta/Brussels |   22 Sep 2011

Six months after the transition to a new, semi-civilian government, major changes are taking place in Myanmar, but many steps still need to be taken to overcome decades of conflict.

Myanmar: Major Reform Underway , the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, examines how President Thein Sein has moved rapidly to begin implementing an ambitious reform agenda first set out in his March 2011 inaugural address. Since mid-July there has been a dramatic change of approach as he has reached out to long-time critics of the former regime, proposing that differences be put aside in order to work together for the good of the country. National League of Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has seized the opportunity, meeting the new leader in Naypyitaw and emerging with the conviction that he wants to achieve positive change.

“In recent weeks a series of concrete steps have been taken to begin implementing the president’s reform agenda, aimed at reinvigorating the economy, reforming national politics and improving human rights”, says Jim Della-Giacoma, Crisis Group’s South East Asia Project Director. “While there are strong indications that the political will exists to bring fundamental change, success will require much more than a determined leader, as resistance can be expected from hardliners in the power structure and spoilers with a vested interest in the status quo”.

President Thein Sein’s inauguration followed 50 years of authoritarian military rule . His new administration, which assumed responsibility for a country still split by deep ethnic division and violent conflict, took some months to gain momentum but now seems to be setting a completely different tone for governance, allowing discussions and initiatives that were unthinkable only a few months ago.

There are already indications that key benchmarks many in the West have insisted on may soon be reached, as major initiatives, such as the release of political prisoners, are now under consideration. Internal progress on human rights and economic reforms that benefit the country’s citizens should be acknowledged and supported by the international community. Crisis Group has long held the view that sanctions on Myanmar – targeted and non-targeted – are counterproductive, encouraging a siege mentality among its leadership and harming its mostly poor population. The greater the pace of change, the weaker the rationale becomes for continuing them – or adding more.

“With the political process moving ahead quickly, now is not the time for the West to remain disengaged and sceptical”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director. “It is critical to grasp this unique opportunity to support a process that not even the most optimistic observers saw coming. This requires a new, pro-active and engaged approach, in line with the positive signals coming from Naypyitaw”.

To listen to Jim Della-Giacoma, Crisis Group’s South East Asia Project Director, talk about changes on the ground in Myanmar please click here for the podcast.

B127 Myanmar – Major Reform Underway

There is a Burmese saying, “A snake sees the legs of another snake.” meaning only the Burmese can see the craftiness and the cunningness of another Burmese, as they are the same birds of a feather, whereas a foreigner however expert he/she may be, have not gone through the experience of living in Burma and could not comprehend the pitfalls created by the Junta. Probably encouraged, by the visit to Burma by US special representative Derek Mitchell, the Obama administration announced that Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asia and Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell will be meeting with the visiting Burmese Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin in New York, on the sidelines of the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton complimented that the meeting of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Junta President Thein Sein is a welcome development even though there is no fruition of any substance so far except some superficial gestures.

Ambassador Derek Mitchell said at the press conference in Rangoon that he was “encouraged by and pleased with the quality and openness of the exchanges with the interlocutors of the Junta’s side who repeatedly stated that this country had opened a new chapter to a civilian-led democratic governing structure and expressed that they were sincerely committed to reform in the interest of human rights, democracy, development and national reconciliation”. Lest he forget that these intercalates are all parrots, if not puppets, of Than Shwe and is forced to cite what the supremo has taught them, in order that the world may view through this prism. Ambassador Derek Mitchell is not Senator Jim Webb and could not play advocacy for the Junta and so Than Shwe refused to see him. The world knows that it was Than Shwe who is above his own constitution is the one that is really calling the shots in Burma.

Some of the international community and Burmese people have heightened hopes and  expectations, now that the US special representative have visited Naypyidaw and some may fancies, real change, may be on the horizon, but many seasoned Burmese academics and the international community remain sceptical. Even, Ambassador Mitchell, as according to his press statement, sees the writings on the wall and have challenged whether the Thein Sein administration could prove the sceptics wrong, by implementing genuine reform and reconciliation? What more prove is wanted when the continued detention of more than 2,000 political prisoners, (in fact this was repeated by Ban Ki-Moon when he met Wanna Maung Lwin) the continuing hostilities in ethnic nationalities areas, and authenticated human rights violations, including rapes of women and using child soldiers so evident in the country. In the meantime the State Department releases  that Burma is one of the eight nations that does not have religious freedom as minority religious adherents often fled the country and one has not to look far but only at the fate of Buddhist clergy in the country.

The establishment of a National Human Rights Commission is on paper only. How many Human Rights lessons have being set up in Burma? Better ask Australia as they help these Burmese officials, the art of human rights with training and workshops from 2001 to 2003. Breaking ranks with the International community the then Australia’s Foreign Minister Alexander Downer became the first Western official to visit Burma in decades and pumps in millions of dollars, for this training but the result is zero . Since then it is clear that despite calls from the international community, the Burmese Junta has no real commitment to improving human rights or bringing about real political change, it is just for propaganda purpose and instead  it continue to increase its gross human rights. Meeting with Ambassador Mitchell the members of the Human Rights Commission simply said that they will have to report to Naypyidaw before they can implement anything. Every Burmese have great reservations about this National Human Rights Commission and is considered as a mere window dressing.

But the most prominent aspect of their treachery can be seen in the ceasefire proposals with the ethnic nationalities. The very fact that they repudiated the Panglong Concordat of 1947, that makes Modern Union of Burma, clearly reveals that the Generals at the head of the Myanmar ethnic group, want to Lord over the other ethnic nationalities in perpetuity and treat them as a colonial people which they inherited from the British colonialist, in other words the 4^th Burmese empire. This is the crux of the Burmese problem. If there is genuine democracy and federalism as Bogyoke Aung San (the founding father of modern Burma and biological father of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) has lay down, and solved the country’s problem through dialogue and peaceful means, then they must respect the charter that makes modern Burma.

Now the Junta firmly believes that belief that the present day Burma developed in a linear fashion straight from the founding of the first Burmese kingdom in 1044 AD under king Anawrahta. Only the British colonization of the Myanmar Kingdom disrupted this historical development. They believe in the accounts of their mighty, expansionistic imperialist empires (one of the proof is the three mammoth statues in Naypyidaw) with subordinate alliances made up of multi-ethnic and multi-language communities, including the Shan, the Arakanese, the Mons, and so on, encompassing the present day Burma and its political boundaries and, at times, stretching into neighbouring India and Thailand, others are their subordinates and hence should not be treated as equal but above the ethnic nationalities. Besides the Myanmar construe that other ethnic nationalities are backward. Hence they repudiated the Panglong Conference of 1947, that modern Burma is a nation-state of diverse ethnic nations (ethnic nationalities), by pre-colonial independent ethnic nationalities such as the Chin, the Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Rakhine (Arakan), Myanmar and Shan based on the principle of equality, as it was founded by formerly independent peoples in 1947 through an agreement.

If this agreement has been honoured, there will be no a military coup at all in the first place and the Burmese people need not fight for democracy as what they are doing now, only if the Myanmar dominated government in 1962 is genuine and solve the ethnic legitimate grievances. The Military came into power because the civilian government could not solve the problem and even now it has no intention of solving this core problem. All these years (1948 to date) the Myanmar group led by the army has used the “Divide and Rule” policy over the Non Myanmar and now the ethnic nationalities have formed the United Federal Council (UNFC) and demanded to set up the real Genuine Union of Burma. This compels the military clique to seek alliance with the pro democracy movement led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and skilfully used the word National Reconciliation for their advantage.. But Daw Suu is her father’s daughter and is determined to do the right thing and complete her father’s task and openly called for the Second Panglong Conference to thrash out the differences with the ethnic nationalities and all the stake holders. Ambassador Mitchell himself has admitted that that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains deeply important to the citizens of this country, Myanmar and ethnic nationalities alike, and that any credible reform effort must include her participation. It was also clear that she remains fully committed to the cause of peaceful change through dialogue.

The UN’s World Drug Report 2011 noted that opium production in Burma had increased 20 percent since 2009, because of a good harvest last year and President Obama had single out that three countries, Bolivia, Burma, and Venezuela, “failed demonstrably” during the last 12 months to make sufficient or meaningful efforts to adhere to the obligations they have undertaken under international counter-narcotic agreements. The world has known that these Burmese generals had indirectly encourage the narco-barons to be the gentlemen of Burma and the existing Burmese billionaires are all narco related even though the well known Khun Hsa has died. Hence the conclusion can be drawn that as long as the Burmese Generals are in power narcotics will flow throughout the world. It must be stop as it source with the people’s participation and how can the people participate without the representative government?

This does not include of Burma aspiring to be a nuclear power like North Korea and its secret has been out by the patriots who know the danger of becoming an uncontrolled nuclear power. Taking all of these together it has been proved beyond doubt that the Burmese regime is trying their level best to manifest to the world at large that they are serious about that country becoming a democracy and hoodwink the international communities with the help of Nazi ancestors, some academics, NGOs and multilateral corporations bent on exploiting the country’s vast natural and human resources.

Ambassador Mitchell has made it clear that the American policy has not changed and that sanctions remain intact as announced yesterday even though the  US remain open to assisting real democracy in Burma. The people of Burma and the international community need to see the concrete and genuine actions taken for real change and not superficial ones. It need sincere and genuine reforms to reach the goals that were outlined by the regime such as democracy, human rights, development, self determination and national reconciliation, then and only then Burma can be in the community of nations not to mention to be an ASEAN Chairperson. Bluffing will not work with the people of Burma or with the international community.

Blue Print for Standing Together

Kanbawza Win

International Scene

Burma has been a pariah nation since 1988, shun by the civilized international community. The Burmese army is reviled domestically and around the world. This is galling to the men in uniforms and naturally these Generals want to sit smart in the community of the civilized nations, in spite of their gross human rights violations. The country had missed a chance to chair of ASEAN in 2006, because of strong international objections led by Western countries, when the systematic use of rape by the Burmese soldiers scrutinized and confirmed by International Organizations and Foreign Governments, couple with the attempted assassination of the Noble Peace Laureate at Depaeyin, which marked the most atrocious chapter of contemporary history of Burma, has become the most notorious country in the world.

Hence the new administration of the Junta has embarked on the public relations drive aimed at shedding a reputation synonymous with human rights violations and abuse. Despite assertions from Naypyidaw that Burma is progressing in the right direction, it remains Southeast Asia’s least developed countries, and ranks 132 out of 169 countries on the UN Human Development Index and various assessments brand the country as a top source for rapes, refugees, drugs and human trafficking, hindering international aid for refugees, all of which have become a sensitive blot on the region’s reputation. Now, another chance for Burma comes out in 2014. Again this time the rape of the Kachin women, authentically proved by the international organizations and strongly condemn by the US Congress couple with the massive child soldiers and staging a sham election with a dubious constitution, not to mention holding more than 2,000 political prisoners would be an embarrassment for the region to be its chairperson.

In order to appease these crimes and to gain legitimacy internationally, as well as to gain credit among its own people, the regime had invited ASEAN Chairperson. Marty Natalegawa, the Indonesia’s Foreign Minister to visit Naypyidaw. But he had made it clear that he will go only if Burma makes a satisfactory progress towards resolving the issues, such as dialogue with pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, ceasefire with the ethnic nationalities and the releasing of more than 2,000 political prisoners.

Hence to prove it, at least cosmetically, the Thein Sein Administration has grudgingly, if not cautiously, contacted the Lady.via the information minister. The irony is that, if it is according to the laws of the Junta, NLD is an illegal association, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is persona non grata. Why contact now?  The raison d’être is crystal clear; it wants to show to ASEAN and the world that there is already a dialogue. Then reluctantly it held a cease fire talks with the Kachin, just to prove to the World Community that they are having a dialogue, when in fact, the regime is not sincere by dispatching only a junior officer which authentically proved that it is reluctant to find a negotiated settlement. The high water mark was by its refusal to dialogue with the Shan, Karenni and the Karen. In a way they are up to their old tricks of divide and rule policy on the ethnic nationalities.

.           When it comes to a sensitive topic of releasing 2000 plus political prisoners held in inhumane and harsh conditions, it is synchronising with some pro-engagement, anti-sanctions apologists and members of the international community in the form of a partial political prisoner release as pretext for a “positive development” to sell Western governments on the idea of lifting sanctions and dropping the call for a UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on human rights abuses in Burma. The pro-engagement, anti-sanctions diplomats, business persons and international NGOs especially led by the Nazi ancestors, are now attempting vigorously to persuade the country’s new quasi-civilian government to give them something, to show that they can be used to argue for reduced sanctions and the opportunity to invest in Burma, in order to open up a new market to exploit the country`s natural and human resources, at a time when Europe is experiencing a financial crisis. It has been proved that behind diplomatic doors, the pro-engagement, anti-sanctions forces are asking for the release of 200-300 political prisoners all at once, and the regime relented by releasing one prisoner a day. In another three months when about 100 or so of its least-threatening prisoners have been released, then it will have create a dilemma for those who genuinely care about democracy and human rights in Burma. Simultaneously because the thaw relations between the Thein Sein administration and NLD there is a possibility that a fraction of the 2000 plus political prisoners will be released, now that regime construe that the ethnic nationalities poses as enemy No 1 instead of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Perhaps the Generals have figured out her popularity as a pop star, instead of a revolutionary figure that will inspire the masses to serious and sustained revolt and have reworked their approach to containing her just like, what the Thai army is doing to Yinluck Shinawahtra.  Obviously, anyone resisting rewarding the release of prisoners with meaningful carrots—such as reduced sanctions or support for the award of the ASEAN chair to Burma in 2014—will be accused of being a “stubborn radical” who is unwilling to compromise. The people of Burma and the international community should see this nasty trick and manoeuvre. The international community must know to allow the prisoner as human capital, bartering away as objects, some holding while others releasing, in order to obtain benefits will allow the regime to perpetuate its oppression of the Burmese people and to benefit the West is something to think of?

Even though any political prisoner release is welcome by anybody, the international community should not allow its own economic motives to cause it to fall into the regime’s trap and give away the leverage of sanctions and a CoI at the cost of the peoples of Burma, before all of Burma’s 2,000 plus political prisoners have all been released and genuine democracy has been restored. So far the only truly significant development has been the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, that was counterbalanced by barring her from participating in the election and the continue crackdown on ethnic nationalities. Can all these be counted as small and positive changes to release the punitive actions as the apologist claims?

National Scene

As far as the domestic scene is concern, the writings on the wall is clear, the regime’s propensity for violence will neither bring national reconciliation nor will it lead Burma to democracy; it will only lead to Myanmarnization over the non Myanmar and deepen the enduring political grievances of systemic alienation and suppression felt by ethnic nationalities. The ethnic nationalities have no choice left to counter it democratically but resort to taking up arms as it had done for decades to rightfully defend their national birthright of ethnic equality and self-determination within their own territory. More than ever before, the changing political trends and drama unfolding inside Burma have demanded that leaders of ethnic-based armed opposition groups stand together in their resistance of armed struggle against successive military regimes. The political stakes are too high for non-cooperation.[1] Knowing the potential power of their collective force, they need to fight their common enemy under the banners of ‘we suffer together; we will fight together; we die together; we shared together’.[2]

Previously due to the corrosion of the internal cohesion among its members and lack of commitment in adhering to their common strategy, the military regime had succeeded in effectively undermining the front by persuading some members of the front to enter into the ceasefire agreements individually. Once, one main member party signs a peace deal with the military regime, it enables the Burmese army to break the internal cohesion and unity of the ethnic nationalities, thus subsequently weakening the collective movement.

Now over the years, understanding has reached that the collective forces of the armed group pose a serious threat to its grip on power, successive military regimes have been employing the strategy of ‘divide and rule’ in dismantling one by one of the collective forces of opposition armed groups. While many of Burma’s watchers wonder about the future of armed struggle in Burma, the recent re-unification of ethnic-based armed organizations under the umbrella of the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) reinvigorates the hope of many in the ongoing ethno- democratic movements. The creation of the UNFC once again signifies the realization that ‘the ethnic resistance forces are more powerful and stronger when they fight collectively, rather than fighting separately without cooperation, what in Burmese we say Nwa Kwe Kyar Kaik (EGm;uGJusm;udkuf). Remembering that countless innocent lives have been sacrificed with the goals of reclaiming their inalienable rights to self-determination, equality, and universal human rights within the ethnic ancestral land, the current and future leadership of ethnic nationalities must attempt to minimize making a collateral strategic blunder in negotiating with the cunning, crafty regime one by one.

Indeed, the notion that we need each other and will stand together has long being embraced in 1976 under the banner of National Democratic Front (NDF). In this case it is worth mentioning that Salai Za Ceu Lian, a Chin scholar had drawn two explicit lessons from the NDF’s experience. First is not to allow the economic and social incentives to outweigh their political rights. Second, is not to enter into a ceasefire agreement with the military regime individually and separately, that would pave the way for the military regime to dismantle one by one again by the regime divide and rule policy. In this aspect the Kachin, which has the most educated leaders, had done a commendable job in demanding that there should be a nation-wide ceasefire and others should follow its example. It is for the Karenni, Shan, Mon, Chin and the Karen or any breakaway party to follow suit. These are the pillars of success for the Non Myanmar whose combine population is far more than the Myanmar.

As seen the regime had refused to have a dialogue with leaders of the UNFC as a common body and have pressured the Thai Intelligence to close the UNFC Office in Chiang Mai and more of this can follow suit, as only then the Thais can exploit Burma’s natural and human resources now that Thaksin’s influence is gaining ground. This clearly indicates that the Burmese regime is not sincere and does not want a negotiated peace. Vice-President Tin Aung Myint Oo claimed Naypyidaw would welcome peace talks with the ethnic nationalities fighting the government is just a bluff. The authenticated proof of it is that fighting in the countryside goes on unabated especially in Karen, Kachin and Shan states.  La Nan, joint-secretary of the KIO, said that is just a propaganda statement which has arisen due to international pressure on Burma.For far too long, the Junta had dictated the terms and conditions of ceasefire agreements in a way that serves its own interest of retaining power.

Pro-democracy Scene

If all the ethnic nationalities could unite, should we leave out the Myanmar ethnic groups? Are all the Myanmar practicing Myanmarnization policy? In other words are all the Myanmar bad? These are the basic questions which every ethnic leader, nationalist and patriot should ask himself, now that there is a possibility of thaw relations between the pro democratic forces and the quasi civilian government. No doubt there are genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar and the Mahar Myanmar that are that wittingly or unwittingly encouraging the Myanmarnization philosophy and programme and even among the Burmese Diaspora who now are holding influential and high positions especially in the media.

One must be able to differentiate between the two. No doubt the Pyidoungsu Myanmar are the followers of Bogyoke Aung San particularly her daughter, U Win Tin, Ko Ko Gyi and the likes but not all the NLDs are Pyidaungsu Myanmar as a great majority of them, especially the retired generals, are Mahar Myanmar, who construe that ethnic nationalities are all rebels bent on balkanization. One can easily distinguished by their actions and their philosophy especially in the interpretation of the Burmese History. For instance, the military leaders and the great majority of the Mahar Myanmar share a belief that the present day Burma developed in a linear fashion straight from the founding of the first Burmese kingdom in 1044 AD under king Anawrahta. Only the British colonization of the Myanmar Kingdom disrupted this historical development. They believe in the accounts of their mighty, expansionistic imperialist empires (one of the proof is the three mammoth statues in Naypyidaw) with subordinate alliances made up of multi-ethnic and multi-language communities, including the Shan, the Arakanese, the Mons, and so on, encompassing the present day Burma and its political boundaries and, at times, stretching into neighbouring India and Thailand, others are their subordinates and hence should not be treated as equal but above the ethnic nationalities.

On the other hand the ethnic nationalities and the Pyidoungsu Myanmar believes that

“The Union of Burma is a nation-state of diverse ethnic nations (ethnic nationalities or nationalities), founded in 1947 at the Panglong Conference by pre-colonial independent ethnic nationalities such as the Chin, the Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Rakhine (Arakan), Myanmar (Burman) and Shan based on the principle of equality. As it was founded by formerly independent peoples in 1947 through an agreement, the boundaries of the Union of Burma today are not historical.”

This is a divergent – and obviously irreconcilable interpretation and will clearly different between the Mahar Myanmar and the Pyidoungsu Myanmar. The latter and the ethnic nationalities who are the genuine followers of Bogyoke Aung San can vividly recalls that in the submission of the Union constitution to the AFPFL at Jubilee Hall on May 1947, our beloved leader himself has said,

“When we build our new Burma, shall we build it as a Union or a Unitary State?    In my   opinion it will not be feasible to set up a Unitary State. We must set up a Union with a properly regulated provision to set up the rights of the ethnic nationalities.”[3]

But the Myanmar historians never pick up this phrase. Even the arch supporter of the Burmese Junta Dr Maung Maung points out that,

“The Union States should have their own separate constitutions, their own organ    of         states, viz parliament, government and Judiciary.” [4]

On the eve on the historic Panglong Conference to be exact on 11^th Frb.1947, Bogyoke Aung San said,

“The dream of a unified and free Burma has always haunted me. We who are                    gathered here tonight are engaged in the pursuit of the same dream.. We have in Burma    many indigenous peoples, the Karen, the Kachin, the Shan, the Chin, the Burman and others. In other countries too there are many indigenous peoples, many races. Thus races        do not have rigid boundaries…If we want the nation to prosper, we must pool our   resources, manpower, wealth, skills and work together. If we are divided, the Karen, the          Shan, the Kachin, the Chin, the Burman (Myanmar), the Mon and the Arakanese, each         pulling in a different direction, the Union will be torn, and we will come to grief. Let us         come and work together.”[5]

This is the essence of coming together but as everybody knows it Bogyoke Aung San and his key leaders were assassinated on 9^th July 1948 and it was U Chan Htun the only proficient person whom the leaders had put their trust on him, shows his Mahar Bamar (r[mArm) mentality by betraying Bogyoke Aung San and the ethnic nationalities of Burma by completely changing his vision made it a unitary state under the directions of U Nu.

Hence an average Myanmar view the ethnic nationality as somewhat the necessary evil of the country where he is destined to live forever and that it is his unbounded duty to lead him to civilization  He/she must be showed the real civilization of the Myanmar people and finally lead him to Theravada Buddhism on to Nirvana. Whereas the ethnic nationalities view that the Myanmar people spearheaded by the Burmese army is still uncivilized as shown by their actions all these half a century especially in pillaging and raping of women, not to mention tens of thousands of child soldiers and killing of children and Buddhist monks.  They were horrified that even now they are behaving in such a way should be brought back to civilization; slowly educate them to bring them back to the civilized international community.

History cannot be undone, but the point which I am emphasizing is that it will be a full mistake and a major blunder, if the ethnic nationalities did not put in the genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar in their band wagon of the country’s epic struggle for the ultimate battle. Without the Pyidoungsu Myanmar, the ethnic nationalities will be building the Union of Ethnic Nationalities with Burmese as a lingua franca at its best and as its worst will be instead of the Union of Burma will be Balkanization. None of which is acceptable to the peoples of Burma or to the international community. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi call for the Second Panglong Conference, .not only to complete the unfinished work of her martyred father but is also potentially laying the groundwork for genuine security and economic prosperity in the border areas, where most ethnic nationalities live, is a clear clarion call which every ethno-democratic forces should lend a ear to stay united with her through thick and thin.

No doubt the flames of ethno-nationalisms of Burma will continue to burn, given the fact that many ethnic communities have been deprived of equality, politically, culturally and economically under the Myanmar -dominated rule for so long. But it must be remembered that the distrust and fear of the Myanmar race groups throughout the country began long before the country gain independence. Even though the Pyidoungsu Myanmar may feel some ideological affinity with their military rulers, more than our cosmopolitan, "enlighten ethnic nationalities” who speak a language littered with words like "federalism" or "self-determination." their reasoning is sound under the guidance of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi when juxtaposed with the ideological discourse of human rights and democracy with the world thinking in this globalized and digital world. Even now the Thein Sein administration is using his major trick by neither calling back the students and the Burmese intelligentsia in Diaspora to come back without general amnesty nor releasing the existing prisoners. But we should know that without the genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar and vice versa without the ethnic nationalities our goal is unattainable. It is a MUST that the two will have to stick together.

Last but not the least is not to forget the Buddhist Clergy whose moral force and stand for justice and truth have shaken the Junta. The Shan, Arakanese, Mon and the majority of the Karen are still adherence of this faith and they have well organized groups both inside and outside the country. We should also recollect of what Bogyoke Aung San that one religion, one race and one language had gone obsolete.[6]

“Religion is a matter of individual conscience, while politics is social science. We    must     see to it that the individual enjoys his rights, including the rights to freedom of religious         beliefs and worship. We must draw clear lines between politics and religion because the           two are not the same thing. If we mix religion and politics     then we offend the spirit of religion itself.”[7]

Hence let us not commit another crime by leaving the well meaning Pyidougsu Myanmar and the religious orders into our United Force for 100% success as the ultimate battles closes in

ASEAN and Asian Scene

Part of the Truman doctrine of the Cold War period was creating a string of Defence Treaty Organizations (NATO in Europe, CENTO, Bagdad Pact in the Middle East, FETO in the Far East) and SEATO or the Manila Pact was born in 1954 including Thailand and Philippines to contain the socialist countries of Russia and China. Once it became obsolete it was replaced by ASEAN in 1967 by newly independent nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore joined by Philippines and Thailand but it was not a defence pact but rather an economic entity. Since then, membership has expanded to include all the ten Southeast Asian countries and aims at the the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development, the protection of the peace and stability of the region, and to provide opportunities for member countries to discuss differences peacefully.

Due to the economic nature of ASEAN, the Constructive Engagement Policy on Burma was adopted when she was in trouble, just to exploit the country’s natural and human resources to their benefit .ASEAN for years held the position that the crisis in Burma is a domestic issue; and closes their eyes to the fact that people are fleeing their homes and spilling into neighbouring territory. It does nothing about the situation and according to the guidelines of the Constructive Engagement Policy continued investing in the many mega-projects inside the country and has no qualms about giving the chair to Burma.

But the association’s most influential Western partners and the civilized international community have said the case must be decided based on Burma’s political and economic reforms and the region’s reputation and credibility would be greatly harmed by supporting a member country as its leader that promotes dictatorship and the violation of basic human rights. Lessons from ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting where EU cancelled because of Burma) must be heeded and could not afford a break with the West

Besides as an emerging economic region with a long history of political instability, ASEAN governments have increasingly spoken of their desire for a leadership that can tackle the manifold social, political and economic problems they collectively face – a call that gains pertinence as borders become more porous, trade grows and an ASEAN ‘community’ blossoms. They also realise that in an apparent attempt to project a reformist image, the quasi civilian government has sought the help of the International Monetary Fund in modernizing its currency exchange system and have withdrew foreign exchange certificates (FECs) and is craftily using Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to seek normalization of their deepening and constitutionalized military -business class to be acceptable in terms of international relations,

On the other hand the Arab Spring has blossom and Southeast itself is changing, Philippines and Indonesia has become full blown democracy and one party dictatorship under the smokescreen of democracy as in Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore are waning, Vietnam and Cambodia have adopted market economy and the leaders of ASEAN are now plodding with the idea of whether it is time for ASEAN to assist Burma in securing justice and if possible to stop human rights violations. Of course it can easily do this by bringing the legal process to bear on the perpetrators and providing relief and comfort to victim’s families and those who suffer in natural catastrophes. This would be a huge step in the resolution of one of the world’s most shameful conflicts between a government and its people.

The people of Burma and the international community has learnt that the Burmese gridlock is not a horizontal one with one ethnic nationalities or party fighting one another but all the pro democratic forces and the ethnic nationalities are fighting against the military Junta and its accomplice. The generals still perceive themselves as good, family men trying their level best to defend Myanmar’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. They view themselves as the saviour of the nation from potential Balkanization and keepers of law and order. Virtually all of them are insular, are stuck in the old father-knows-best mentality and demand complete and utter loyalty. While the rank and file live rather poor lives, not dissimilar to the bulk of the population, a handful of top generals live extremely lavishly by local standards. [8]

The Burmese army view that ordinary people and civil servants of the country live more easy-going lives. They are undisciplined and have many leisure hours. They do business just to enrich themselves. When the army cracks down on peaceful demonstrators, they viewed them as lazy opportunists who are asking for rights without working hard and sacrificing like them The army as a whole works hard whereas others don`t do.. The soldiers work industriously and are disciplined and for this they are simply reaping the advantages from performance. The end result is that soldiers believe they have the sole right to hold state power due to their hard work and sacrifices and could not comprehend of why these foreign countries are always asking the army to give up power. No doubt foreigners work hard and think smarter than lazy people of Burma, and these are the reasons developed countries are ahead of Burma seems to be the Burmese army`s logic and rationale. In other words the Burmese army in a way blame the people for failing to develop the country. When ordinary people go abroad to seek job opportunity, they see them as betraying the country and opting for a foreign one. Not a single general or soldier had the slightest idea that the country could not move forward because of the army’s heavy handed control. The Burmese army propaganda encourages a blind racist nationalism, full of references to protecting the Myanmar ethnic race leaving out the other ethnic nationalities. This implies that if the Myanmar do not oppress other nationalities then they find themselves be oppressed. For them national reconciliation means assimilation and preventing disintegration of the Union of Burma, all the ethnic races must be assimilated into the Myanmar race including their language, culture and values. With such kind of mind set it is still to be seen how will ASEAN respond to be eligible for the chairperson?

Will ASEAN’s support for the call of the international community and the United Nations to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the crimes against humanity which is the only way to achieve the ultimate goal or will they prove it that ASEAN chairperson to be the highest stage of this Constructive Engagement is still to be seen?

Given the staunch political support and unprincipled business dealings from Beijing’s bogus neo-communists with their unquenchable thirst for Burma’s energy resources, as well as the support of the veto-wielding Russia, the international community has so far not been powerful enough to either strong-arm or persuade the regime to find a peaceful resolution to their self-perpetuated war against their own citizens.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s focus on a more durable and equitable resolution of Burma’s festering interethnic relations should pique interest from Kunming to Zhongnanhai and make the men on the dragon throne sit up.[9] By proposing to reopen negotiations on a new Second Panglong Agreement, modeled on the 1947 pact would be in China’s interests, since it would resolve the dilemma arising from its present conflicted role. Beijing poses as both the protector of ethnic Chinese minority peoples on the Burmese side of the border, and also the political protector and economic enabler of their tormentors.

It can be seen that the Chinese government’s hopes that the recent elections would help move the country in that direction have proven to be illusory, as armed conflict has resumed in the wake of widespread disenfranchisement and continued state violence in ethnic areas. This unstable situation has major implications for China’s quest to exploit Burma’s natural resources, as both petroleum pipelines and major hydroelectric projects traverse or are located in ethnic homelands.[10] These projects have already been the site of anti-Chinese violence. If Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can succeed where the Junta’s coercive approach has failed, China would be one of the biggest beneficiaries.

Another factor is the Junta’s poor response to HIV/AIDS (usually name as SLORC’s disease for when the country first open its door HIV/AID is the first to come in) epidemic and the nature of cross-border trade between China and Burma, public health experts and epidemiologists have tracked a vector of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases begins in Burma have sweeps into China’s Yunnan province—home of China’s highest HIV/AIDS infection rates—before spreading out into the rest of the country. On the other hand Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to an HIV/AIDS clinic in Rangoon and her exhortation to do more for those suffering from Burma’s epidemic will definitely also a benefit to China.

Now that China is has a potential to be the next super power, at least economically, (America’s biggest foreign creditor, holding $1tn of debt) where even the Vice President Joe Baden has to kow tow to the next generation of the men on the Dragon throne, that have a lot of brains will have to think twice for the continue support of the Junta’s accomplice. If the ethno democratic forces remain united they would really be an alternative to the Junta and definitely will get the support from the emerging economic powers of China, India and Japan. Hence it is high time for the ethnic nationalities (UNFC), Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s party and the clergies to be united in one voice.

(Even though the author’s email has been compromised by the Junta and its accomplice he can still be reached at bathannwin@gmail.com)

[2] Ibid

[3] See Bogyoke Aung San’s speech pp 306-307

[4] U Maung Maung Burmese National Minorities 1940-1989- p170

[5] See the speeches of Aung San also reprinted in The New Panglong Initiative, Rebuilding the Union of Burma p 13 by Chao Tzang and LH Sakong

[6] See Contemporary of the speech of Aung San delivered  on 20^th Jan. 1946

[7] Ibid.

[8]Zarni,Maung Dr.;               Monks Vs. Generals Opinion Asia Sept 2007

[9] Wall Street Journal 25^th Nov.2010

[10] Ibid