UK. Org. Collective comment. 06 June 2003 Politics is not a game for the faint hearted. We said it then and we say it again today! Although ruled by a ruthless and cunning regime, stupid, it most defiantly is not! The SPDC will not suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein for many reasons. Burma's military dictatorship is not seen as a threat, to neither, its neighbours, or the world. It does however; know its days are numbered, as did Hitler’s deputies when hearing of the D-day landings on the 6th,s of June. It was just a matter of time. Although motives between Hitler’s Reich and the SPDC, may appear similar in mentality, it held vastly different ambitions. When general Ne Win took power from Prime Minister U Nu, in 1962, he never had ambitions to invade South East Asia. He may have expected other major powers to use Burma as a pawn in their own game of geopolitics, but he and his cronies were quite happy to accept that, providing it allowed them to hold power over their own people. The SPDC are well aware of the world around them. They are also aware that any transition to democracy can only happen when the pro-democracy opposition is in a position to execute a direct challenge to their power-base, worthy enough to draw respect, that time was to arrive, only, when the Parliamentary Democracy Party (PDP Burma) came back into the game. In the mean time, the more threats the regime receives, the more it will revert to rough justice. Of course its power base is corrupt and cruel, and yes, it will stay in power so long as the opposition is weak. ‘Weak’ being the operative word, which is why it has stayed in power for so long! Along the lines of a statement made to UK.org was; "if Aung San Suu Kyi, was less the ‘political activist’ and more the ‘active politician’, she may be received with a little more reverence by those she confronts. Anointing her with honours and deeds, has done nothing to improve her status as a political figure, only her "choreographed image", and then only through the eyes of the Western naivity, and ignorance of Burma's history and its culture. This type of ‘warming’ the people, when attempting a change in policy has been seen before with Mandela. Because western powers considered the African people as not 'intellectually aware’ of the intricacies of politics, it was therefore considered; that it required the old fashion revered idol image to pull the people together and to use him as the voice piece of the real power, which tempts many to wonder if he was kept in prison waiting for such a time as when he was needed, and not executed, as were many of his comrades, for what was conveniently, seen back then, as terrorist acts, We neither, condone or condemn Mandala's role in bringing apartheid to an end, method, always moves in accordance to necessity, what we are revealing is real life, hard politics, as played by masters! Could it be, that the west is attempting to use the same tactics in Burma with Suu Kyi? This is what the SPDC find so humiliating, and perhaps, this is what forces them to retaliate as they do? 8/8/88 had a profound impact on the regime, because it knows only too well, that it could happen again, but next time could be better planned and executed, but while the people are seen to be running around like headless chickens without rhyme, reason or credible leadership, they see only timid opposition which is readily dealt with. To try and use Suu Kyi in the same manner as Mandela is the wrong tactic in Burma. Both within, Burma's ethnic communities, and Burman alike, are often regarded as having their; 'differences', though not as we in the west would perhaps, characterise as racially motivated, though historically, cultural clashes have been in the forefront, but not as in; ‘black & white Africa'! Aung San Suu Kyi only entered politics, (loosely said) because it was thought her name would boost support. She does not share the same Para-military activist past, as did Mandela, On the contrary the lady enjoyed much of her life whilst Burma was in turmoil, in the comfort and safety of her English middle class home, unlike Mandela, who spent many years in a prison cell which was not not in the same league as ASSK’s comfortable home in Rangoon. He had a past relevant to the cause, Suu Kyi does not, and the world will look in dismay if the ladies popularity is not as portrayed, once free campaigning is allowed? What state will Burma be in then? If the SPDC saw a leadership where logic prevails, and it consisted of people where respect is mutual, it would be in their interest as well as the countries, to enter into dialogue. You do not have to like someone in order to talk peace. Acknowledgement of respect to your enemy is a healthy way to stay in the game. But the more they are forced to accept Suu Kyi, although she may be regarded as an important figure in Burma’s historical family album, she is not qualified to sit opposite them where serious political issues are at stake. It is time for sentiment and superstition to be replaced by common-sense and logic. If this adoption does not take place on all sides of the pro-democracy political arena, then Burma will sink into oblivion, and the world will watch it disappear, and we will go back to watching TV and quickly forget. Those are the hard facts. Years of ‘stagnation’, have elapsed since the ‘NLD’ election victory, not, as must be said, ‘stalemate’, which is a deadlock between two 'equally balanced' players! In the case of the SPDC versus NLD & Suu Kyi, this unfortunately is not the case. We have read about the many new ‘groups’, which have or are, in the process of being created. We accept that not all political parties are accepted by all of the people, but a fledgling society of the modern world must first unite using whatever talents of justice it has at its disposal, and not to simply set up groups of antagonistic individuals who seem to think it all just a game. It could be that some of these groups are no other than subversive elements of better known groups? After all every other institution around the world have them lurking in the shadows, why should Burma be any different? One of the major lessons to be learned in politics, it to study every tool of power the opposition has in it armoury! What you cannot see, you plan for anyway. It helps to be paranoid in politics as it can prepare you for the unexpected. Thirteen years have passed, a vast pan of wealth in knowledge of the opposition should have been in place, where again perhaps, the SPDC may have shown some respect toward a worthy opponent? The creation of new and indiscriminate groups led by the inexperienced and naive, shows in itself, that confidence in the NLD and Suu Kyi, has greatly deteriorated. Moving to a level where the situation has changed to the student now preaching to the professor. Hordes of screaming students on the rampage, are jeopardising the futures of many. The correct action should be for the despondent ‘others’, to seek representatives of the political system, who have the necessary qualifications to act on their behalf. This would mean, instead of outlawing themselves from due process, they should join and support a known major political party who has open credentials and a precise means of executing its policies. Any member within that party will be able to exercise their right to question or add their point of view for debate. Anyone who attempts to take on a system without having all the right qualifications and the incentive to work together is destined for disaster. Situated around the world, and inside Burma, are amply qualified Burmese and Burmese ethnic minds, which have studied these elements, and hold all the right qualifications, who could very well be respected enough by the SPDC for them to be invited to sit down and talk? The only problem being, that many of the voices proclaiming their loyalty to democracy are no more than power seekers themselves, and are trapped inside their own ego which forbids them to either accept level discussions with the SPDC, or for them to seek advice from qualified people as it may undermine their personal ambitions of being at the helm? A prime example of this appears to be identified at the loss of any influence and credibility the ‘Democratic Alliance of Burma’ (DAB) could have had, if it were not for exactly those reasons? It was with great expectations that UKorg went to extreme lengths, using all its credibility and tact, to encourage the British government to meet with the ‘DAB’ in London some years back. In which the prologue was a difficult and sensitive action where General Bo Mya who displayed true leadership, by honouring his position as chairman of the ‘DAB’, spoke as a coalition spokesman and not solely as the ‘KNU’ president. These original talks were kept secret due to their sensitivity, at the request of Britain, and not designed to deceive anyone. Had the road outlined to them, not as advice, but as a suggestion, been followed after returning to Burma, today, could very well have been a different story. As it turned out, there were those who crippled the ‘DAB’s ability to represent all of Burma, due solely to personal ambitions! We have been allowed to reveal now, had the advisor's to General Bo Mya, who should himself be acknowledge as a dedicated supporter to an all Burma coalition, which at the time was accepted, under the premiss of the ‘DAB’ as a body, been united in the fight against the regime, and worked accordingly, it would have received undeniable support from every quarter, and the ‘NLD’ could very well have taken office. Our sympathy went out to General Bo Mya who took a great personal political risk by travelling to London, only to have his loyalty betrayed by those he trusted, and proved right by those he did not! "The days of charging cavalry led by an idealistic figure in shining armour, mounted on a white house, are long gone. If a democratic government, depended solely on one person as able to run government, and that person died by whatever means, that government would lose its power base and could not operate effectively. This is not the case in the real world of today, either in a democracy or with the SPDC, because a leader is only part of the power base, his/her demise would not cripple the machinery of government, merely distract it for a moment in time. Suu Kyi is an exception to the rule, as the sole battery giving life to the ‘NLD’, all the SPDC has to do in order to slow or neutralise the ‘NLD’, is to impose restrictions on Suu Kyi, which is precisely what it is doing"! Getting back to reality as we must, and repeated many times before, means, that only a solid coalition of intellectual minds in tune with political realities will bring democracy to Burma. The ‘NLD’ with all its hangers on, all waiting for ministerial posts once in power, must accept, that there is no room at this stage of the game for individuals whose craving for power stands in the way of millions of people, holding back their chances to smell freedom and contentment. The ‘NLD’ has had over a decade to become a viable opposition, instead it stands in ridicule, and no amount of bestowed praise or honours will change that. The strength of the ‘NLD’ will be recognised if it shows a true loyalty to the people, by accepting its position, and is seen to invite all the right people in one room irrelevant of their political agendas and take advantage of all the intellectual minds who can offer advise and alternatives to the present situation as a think tank. All differences should be put to one side, and all cards placed in the centre of the table, which if intelligent people cannot manage, then again Burma is a lost cause. It is reasonable to accept that meetings of said nature would not be possible inside Burma, at least not openly, so the ‘NLD’ leadership should sanction talks on its behalf outside of Burma, or indeed move into exile and build a competent political force, where level talks could then take place in a neutral country. Moral support from outside can only last for so long, before supporters become disillusioned and move on to other more deserving projects. Food for thought: Questions have been asked as to why, when Thailand has openly accused Burmese troops of violating its territory, did nothing. If Burma at any time crossed its borders in a military capacity, then it would in theory act as a threat to the American bases located in Thailand? Perhaps I should rephrase that. With the present defence policies being executed by the USA, any hostile activity-taking place on soil, which is hosting US troops, could perhaps, if it chose to, be seen as a threat to them, and could very well, invite a military response? Rather a silly scenario to hypothesise perhaps? It must be remembered that the language of politics is designed in such a way it can suit any occasion, as was found out when America and its allies moved into Iraq, and that is just one example of how rules are made to fit any given situation. We live in a world where old rules are being compromised so new rules are constantly being written. In the same breath though, it would not be advisable for Burma to wait until the Americans arrive, as it could be a long wait? Uk.org. UK.org. Member comment. 08 November 2002 Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro representing the UN seems to be sending out signals to the world, that the SPDC are moving forward, then again some reports are saying the contrary. Whatever the press release as being said, we the public will only know what the UN godfathers want to tell us. The real facts on the situation and the solutions will remain firmly locked tight, and these UN ‘visits’ are solely an intelligence gathering operation. The SPDC are aware of this, and treat it as such, which means, everything they do is ‘just for the camera’ as we say. Any real signs of change will be seen through the eyes of the people, they will not and do not, require the UN or anybody else to tell them how things are. What the people can see is for over a decade now nothing has changed to improve their lives. If the NLD as an elected party needs more than a decade to get its act together what chance do the people have of reaping the benefits in their miserable lifetime? Because all they can see, is a group of people living off the fat of the land playing the part of the big leader and achieving absolutely nothing for their country. These are not my words but the words of a great many Burmese I have met over the past five years by moving among them. It took four years to beat Germany in the first war, and seven in the second war. (Facts not criticism of Germany). On both occasions Britain started with nothing compared to Germany’s might! 'It took all of Britain’s diplomatic skills to create a powerful coalition to take on a formidable enemy. No easy task when all concerned wanted to give up. While all this was going on, thousands of British troops gave their lives in France to create the time needed to persuade our allies that Germany could be beaten'. Many of the truths about the problems this country faced in building a coalition will never be told, but thank god we succeeded. The Burma scenario is not so very different. You have a military regime with great military might, and a country consisting of armed resistance. Up until the election, when the NLD had its winning day, all resistance was sacrifice with no victory. After the election the country had a democratically elected party, even though it was not allowed to govern. A little like Poland, Belgium, Holland and France, once Germany took control. Although these countries put up armed resistance, they would never have succeeded in defeating the Germans individually. Again, the same scenario as in Burma with all the different ethnic nations. It was Britain who put the steam back into the boiler of Europe. It was Britain who boosted these countries faith in victory. Eventually after a few years a successful coalition was established, the rest is history. "Had the NLD had done its job, it too could have achieved the same goal among its different armed factions, and over the years could have defeated the regime. It did not travel that route because it did not hold the skills nor indeed, the incentive, to achieve results. It treated many of the opposition with contempt and chose ‘non-violent’ means not through conscience but convenience. Which begs the question, why did the NLD enter into elections when it knowingly held none of the skills required to govern? There are many ideas one can come up with, but all will be meaningless. The fact is, the NLD with all its monumental acclaim, has achieved absolutely nothing"! There is not a democracy on this planet that would have continued to support such a track record from any party, and together with other observers who actively move among the Burmese people, we are of the opinion that the masses inside Burma no longer see the NLD as their saviour but more their downfall. But because Burma believed it only had the one party it deemed it self as having no other choice. Enter the PDP. For years the PDP sat back giving its loyalty to the NLD, who took that loyalty for granted, even showed it contempt when advice was offered to the NLD, by responding with arrogance in ignoring logical advise from certain members of the PDP. The PDP was sacrificing their lives in an armed struggle when the 1990 elections came around, all of them were wanted people, preventing them from entering the elections, this why U Nu went under another political title when he tried to reclaim his post as Prime Minister elect. This removed any serious opposition away from the NLD, but also because it was believed by using Aung San as a role model, whose living blood line was available in Suu Kyi, the people would come together in such masses the REGIME WOULD AUTOMATICALLY CRUMBLE. Again the rest is history. It is not uncommon for politicians to create a problem just so it looks good for them when they resolve it. The NLD has created most if not all of its problems but without managing to resolve them. A few years ago the PDP decided it was time to act on behalf of their country. Although in a state of weakness materially, as Britain was in 1939, it put all its intellect and will power to work. The results of which are now emerging, and will continue to do so. If the NLD continues to act with arrogance and simply surviving on public images instead of political skill and cunning it will destroy itself and any future Burma may hope for. So, any talking, for example with Suu Kyi of the NLD and the SPDC if held under strict secrecy, is to the benefit of the regime, because it will manipulate the weakness of the NLD out of sight of any witness’s, and could simply be a decoy to keep other parties and pro- democracy groups from interfering with what could be a pact in the making between the NLD and SPDC. Although a move in this direction could be seen as practical by some people, and believed to be the only way forward, it could easily pave the way for a more intense civil war, (one must ask who would benefit from such a situation?) and it must be considered as a distinct possibility, which if so, makes one wonder, what the NLD hope to achieve, because any decisions made without the full cooperation of all concerned would not help but hinder. There are some highly intelligent minds among those standing for democracy, why the NLD seems intent on struggling alone only indicates to me, that naivety or arrogance or indeed both, is the barrier preventing them in seeking assistance. Coalitions are normal when fighting a common enemy, so what is so different about Burma? If the world is expected to believe that the theatrical NCGUB which has the word ‘coalition’ in its title, plays this role then the world is being fooled because there is little or no significant representation from other parties or political groups. It does have an un-elected leader (He is not even NLD he still retains his own parties identity, NUB? whereas most other members of this farcical charade ditched their former parties and joined the NLD and accepted the nominations offered to them in the NCGUB.) They draw financial support from different groups around the world who in turn believe they are supporting a democratic alliance, when in fact they are helping Sein Win to prepare a path for himself. He needs to retain his own party’s identity because it wouldn’t be seen as a coalition otherwise, and because he holds strong ambitions for himself therefore; being a member of the NLD would restrict these ambitions, when in fact the so called leader of the NCGUB if it is to represent government in exile, should if anything, be an NLD member of the publicly elected government. However, I do not see any wrong in ambition, it’s the way it’s being done which is wrong. I believe the NCGUB is accepting funds under false pretences. Others and myself have been astonished at the revulsion shown by many Burmese people who consider the NCGUB as a parasite living off their suffering. They believe that anyone who expects people to bow down to their self appointed title of prime minister, ‘’and he expects just that’’, said one elderly Burmese gentleman who has him self experienced prison for acts against the regime. Also allowing ill informed foreigners to think he heads the Burmese elected government in exile. ‘The NCGUB is not a government in exile’ and its leader deserves nothing short of a reprimand and dismissal from people’s minds as such. And there is a sparkling of resemblance to the CRPP, again formed to give the impression that all people are represented in order to gain western support, with the excuse it is there as a lobby and debate group which incorporates the ethnic nations. ‘Phewy’, it consists of mainly NLD members of those particular ethnic groups, who are not representatives of the whole particular ethnic nation. These false images are being circulated around the globe to give the impression that the NLD has united all the people. That is the same as a British MP declaring that all of his constituents are Labour when in fact his district is shared among 3 or 4 parties. For Suu Kyi to be a ‘member’ of these groups as are other NLD members, is a little like our prime minister and his cabinet becoming members of both major opposition parties, just so he can keep an eye on things. Watchdog committees I would agree with, where parties keep an eye on each other, but watchdog committees, which is 99% one party, and that party being in power, would have great trouble working in a democracy. The Burmese people are not fools, and know all of the above, but they do not have the voice of the NLD, until now that is. The PDP is putting things back in order inside Burmese politics. Again the spotlight will fall on Razili Ismail’s visit to Rangoon, in regard to any business dealings which may coincidently benefit him or the companies he may be involved with, as his all expense paid trip, by the UN, or I should say the tax payers of UN members, could be seen as a major influencing factor in any pressure he may be expected to apply on the SPDC It must be seriously reconsidered due to the fact that he benefits from dealings with Rangoon, if indeed he is the right man for the job. Under many circumstances, a working relationship where both sides benefit from business interests is an advantage when moving in other sensitive areas, and it must be said that politics and business more often than not work hand in hand, and play a major role in world affairs. The difference here is, the SPDC, being a despot regime, with a leadership who fears for itself, will use every leverage open to them to preserve their own sanctuary for as long as possible, and in doing so prolongs the suffering of millions of people. So, to place persons into a situation where profit could be used to blind their main objective, albeit conveniently stored in their subconscious, is a temptation, which should not even have entered into the equation when choosing a representative for the UN to operate in Burma. Therefore the job requires a person with no temping sidelines, which may influence his role as a UN representative in Rangoon. What ever the feelings are, the fact is that no signs are obvious that advancement is being made between the NLD and SPDC, If there is no secret pact being put together, then the NLD has got to reprogram its hard drive, and insert new software. It must look for new ways in which to show the people it supposedly stands for, that the NLD and its leaders are not just convenient idols placed in position to divert attention away from the actions of the SPDC, because as time continues to move on, it is beginning to appear as so. Where once upon a time, the NLD was all the people had, it now has the PDP as well. Not to be seen as just another political party but as a lifeline. So the NLD must wake up or fall out. Comment from, David UK.org Member.. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UK. Org. Collective comment: June 2004 The words “I told you so” would, under different circumstances, be appropriate right now, if not for the fact, of everyone knowing beforehand exactly what the ‘planned’ outcome of this farcical convention would be. On the one side there are the Generals of the SPDC, who will ‘never’ voluntarily hand power to the NLD, and, as the world has now witnessed first hand, to Aung San Suu Kyi in any manner or form! On the other side, is the NLD, with ASSK portrayed as the symbol of freedom, at least through the eyes of some, others view her as the obstacle of freedom because of her influence in preventing and/or, denying the NLD of valuable allies within the pro-democracy movement, something which has finally isolated the NLD from just about every element in opposition to the regime, not to mention the internal disputes within their own ranks. The lady, as far as the SPDC and not surprisingly, many Burmese people are concerned, is nothing more than a symbol, meaning, the SPDC will tolerate her in this role, but at no time will the regime look upon her as a ‘political’ figure. She was not active in the NLD during the 1990 election but reinstated once it was clear that the regime was not going to permit the NLD to take office, therefore, holds no legitimate right to pose as an elected member of parliament, least of all as leader, hence the regime deny her the status of such. Most mature minded Burmese are well aware of this predicament, and have been so, for a long time, but due to the massive publicity programme directed at her, other, less known, (Outside of Burma) but both, battle and 'politically hardened veterans, all worthy candidates from within the NLD and from other elements, suddenly ended up in her shadow, where their full potential was never exploited'. Her portrayal as a symbol of freedom may have brought much needed attention to the plight of Burma as a country, but sadly, even this, is the result of her marriage to a British man. This in turn attracted public notice to an otherwise unheard of (outside of Burma ) lady, ‘Suu Kyi’, and a man, ‘Aung San’ her father, who to the rest of the world, who in turn, are too busy with their own lives, bears absolutely no prominence, just as the name ‘Oliver Cromwell’ would not prick ears back inside Burma other than the serious scholar. This latest convention has, if nothing else revealed both the true depth of indoctrination of those taking part, and the complete irrelevance of the lady as a ‘political’ force. It has been mentioned that those who attended, have been allowed to speak their minds, giving the impression that free speech prevails. ( These apparent acts of submission on behalf of the SPDC, are purely for public propaganda ) To continue however, these two facts were not taken seriously before the convention either by the Burmese people or the watching world, even after the PDP had sent clear signals to this effect. This serious lack of acknowledgment together with complete disregard for any counter moves, (other than being dependant on outside help) has now placed the democracy movement right back into the pit of despair, again forewarned by the PDP, and all because the NLD, or rather certain individuals within it, looked upon themselves as righteous and above all others, instead of seeking ideas from within the extended pro-democracy movement. This is not what democracy is all about. Democracy is selecting the most capable political party which will work on behalf of the people, if that party cannot forefill its obligations, no matter what the problems; it is the responsibility of the people to reshuffle the pack of cards and deal a new hand. A number of people have voiced their views on this issue, and some prominent individuals have described their own efforts at trying to approach the NLD in the past, and tried to convince them to invite ideas, and to make use of all input offered from other democracy elements, but all to no avail. Now, the people of Burma will have to pay the price of arrogant incompetence, unless, another obvious entity within the walls of politics is recognised, otherwise it’s back to the drawing board! There is only one other party with the political prowess and solid infrastructure, capable of taking on the SPDC. Unlike many of the new groups which have popped up over the past few years, which consist of nothing more than a small group of individuals trying to establish a status. The PDP is party who considers all the people of Burma. It is not a party, which wallows in its own glorification, but rather, it is a ‘tool’ of all the people of Burma, and its only wish is to guide them to freedom. To succeed where the NLD failed! There is no one single party inside the Burmese political arena, who has shed more blood than the PDP in the fight against the military regime. The NLD sits back preaching its own testament, while others pay the price of freedom with their lives. A comment published recently, hinted that there are no other political party’s to possibly replace the NLD. That belief may well be true of party’s who stand for ethnic nations only, it is not so with the PDP, which, as a completely rejuvenated independent political party, which has been fighting the regime for a long time, and was, for a number of years, caught up in the same hysteria as the people in the hope of freedom. However, the PDP today, is in strenuous opposition to the NLD and its failed policies, and is well capable of succeeding where the NLD have continually failed the people. and is indeed moving forward on behalf of those people every day. It is incredulously naïve to think that the NLD has any future as a political party while the SPDC stills rules. The only way the NLD would ever become part of a democratic system where it could campaign for office, is after the PDP has opened all the doors of freedom, but with its poor track record, the NLD would find it very difficult to convince the country that its worthy of votes? There is a particular, historically established party, which represents all, and not just one element of society, and, as mentioned above, is seeking the ballot box and not glory. That party is; The Parliamentary Democracy Party (PDP Burma). UKorg. -------------------------------------------------- #The PDP are not enemies of the West, no more than U Nu was, quite the opposite, it appears the West is making enemies of the PDP today because; it will not permit the party of U Nu to be manipulated, no more than; Aung San, or U Nu himself would allow. If it were to be so, would open the way for the people of Burma to be segregated once again by western foreign policy preventing any unification what so ever. The Chairman of the PDP, with the full authority of his party, had for years, been secretly liasing with the late Karen leader; General Saw Bo Mya, where many outdated differences were debated to the point of common sense prevailing. What had been a major hurdle for generations was cleared, making a clear path for a new Burma and Bo Aung Dins' superb diplomatic skills produced results when; certain influencial countries around the globe accepted that if an interim government was formed within the bounderies of democratic principles, showing a united political stage, Burma, with General Saw Bo Mya (Karen) as President, and Daw Aung San Kyi, as Prime Minister, it would be recognised, and as such; recieve all diplomatic courtesies accordingly. However; a certain Sein Win, of the NCGUB did not fit into the equasion as he would have liked, so he somehow influenced proceedings to the point of sabotaging Burma's first hope of not only unifiying the ethnics, but political parties also, against the regime, with a diplomatic force on the world stage. Considering this man was not and is not, NLD, therefore; had no real party political monopoly, but simply a self promoted Prime Minister in exile, whom no government in the world acknowledges, still baffles many as too how he engadged such influence? This man has a great deal to answer to when the people of Burma are given the chance to question him. By blocking this chance, he furthered the sufferng of millions, including that of Suu Kyi?