Braking News

U Win Htein has been rearrested

Amazing article

Asymmetry in strategy

By Roland Watson, Dictator Watch, 12 June 2006

For an old, decrepit dictator, Than Shwe is remarkable flexible. He:

1. Joined ASEAN and then used it successfully as a foil against international pressure for nine years.

2. Continuously snubbed the organization and also clearly signaled his willingness to leave it if and when it ceased to suit his purposes (i.e., by declining to take the group chairmanship).

3. Initiated a “Roadmap to Democracy,” with a “National Convention,” as a subterfuge that he was sincere about allowing a democratic transition. (This also served as a time delaying tactic.)

4. Used Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Thailand as a secondary foil, essentially as the Junta's sanitized international mouthpiece, particularly through the “Bangkok Process.” (At Than Shwe's behest, Thaksin also repressed Burma democracy activists living in Thailand.)

5. Established a strategic alliance with China, and then when China's support began to weaken negotiated backup relationships with India and Russia.

6. Emulating the policies of his predecessors, worked to split the ethnic resistance forces of Burma. He then redirected the Army against those groups that refused to capitulate. (Than Shwe has used “divide and conquer” both to undermine the overall unity of such groups, and also the internal unity of specific groups, e.g., the Karen).

7. Using spies and also organizations such as USDA, turned the Burmese people against themselves.

8. Tricked Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, Special Envoy Razali, and virtually everyone else, that under the right conditions he would be willing to engage in dialogue.

9. Tricked humanitarian organizations operating inside Burma about his sincerity, and used them as additional foils against international pressure.

10. Imprisoned and released democracy activists, again and again, as a means to keep the human rights and diplomatic communities perpetually off balance.

11. Purged Khin Nyunt when his services were no longer required, which was also only one in a long series of purges designed to weed out threats and to create a climate of fear within the Junta itself. (Many people have commented that the SPDC, at least publicly, is united, but the pro-democracy opposition is not. This explains the former.) If you want to liken the struggle for freedom in Burma to a chess match, Than Shwe is making good use of all of his pieces and has a well thought out plan.

In contrast, the Burma Democracy Movement has called for freedom for Daw Suu, and dialogue with the SPDC as the sole means to a resolution of the problems of the country, without any serious consideration of other alternatives.

This discrepancy in creativity and flexibility, and determination - Than Shwe is determined to stay in power, we are not determined to get him out—is the fundamental reason for his continued rule.

(Of course, he also uses astrology! Rumor has it that in accordance with the wishes of his council of astrologers, there was a coronation ceremony during the Water Festival in which he was crowned Emperor.) The Burma Democracy Movement also relies on what I call “celebrity activism.” What I mean by this is that we organize grassroots initiatives as a means to generate higher level interest, from diplomats and pop stars. We then depend on these individuals to create the degree of pressure that is required to trigger change. For example, now that Than Shwe has unequivocally spurned dialogue with the NLD, the movement is focused, again exclusively, on the Security Council. The idea seems to be that perhaps with Council scrutiny, he will reconsider and come to the bargaining table. (There is no expectation whatsoever that an international force or similar strong measures will be organized to expel him from power.)

The alternative to celebrity activism, to seeking help from people who typically pay attention for a moment but then lose interest, is for grassroots organization to empower the people of Burma themselves to demand change. Instead of having a two tier process, and with an external focus (activists—celebrities and diplomats—U.N. Security Council), we need a simpler, one stage process concentrated directly on the people of the nation.

Right now the focus of the Burma Democracy Movement is 90% on the international community and 10% on the people of Burma. This ratio needs to be reversed.

Until the people of the country rise up, Than Shwe is secure. Of course, we shouldn’t drop our efforts to get the SPDC on the formal Security Council agenda, particularly now that the United States finally seems to be getting serious. But we have to help the people in the country as well, politically. Burmese media that is broadcast or distributed inside should convey revolutionary messages and education.

Anyone outside who is in a position to help organize underground networks and resistance groups inside should do so. For activists around the world who don’t have these abilities, the missing ingredient is funding. Revolutions do not come free. Even $100 can make a huge difference by enabling an internal network to pay for transport and checkpoint bribes. Everyone can help with fundraising, and then convey the money to individuals and groups who are in direct contact with revolutionaries inside.

It is a fatal mistake to depend on diplomacy and dialogue. When we concentrate our efforts on diplomacy, we have to recognize that we are putting all our eggs in one basket. There is no fallback plan.

Diplomacy and dialogue are risky not only because of Than Shwe's intransigence, but also due to “geopolitics.” No one, not a single government on earth, not even the United States, really cares about what is happening to the fifty million people of Burma. The proof of this statement is simple. If they did really care, they would do something. Even the U.S. has refused to assist real democracy activities inside the country (and also to fund IDP crisis relief projects).

We should also understand that while we may think we are, we are not in fact asking international parties to sincerely care about Burma. Rather, what we are really asking is for them to tip the geopolitical game in our favor, to throw us a bone. This is a dangerous strategy for many reasons, not the least of which is that it takes forever, and even when we do get support we might lose it at any time and for any reason. I would like to ask the people of Burma: How do you feel about being a pawn in the game of international geopolitics? Or to the Karen, Karenni and Shan: How do you feel that the atrocities committed by the SPDC against you are simply not large enough to demand action?

Diplomats are essentially saying, if you added a zero, if the number of new internally displaced persons was 180,000 instead of 18,000, then they might be persuaded to end their game and actually do something. But it's not. Therefore, there is no reason for them to act. Their loss of face only exceeds their quest for reasons not to act when a crisis reaches Darfur, Rwanda and Nazi levels.

What's under discussion now at the Security Council is only a non-binding resolution, not sanctions. The diplomats are light years from considering expulsion from the U.N., the imposition of a comprehensive arms embargo, and the introduction of a peace-keeping force into Eastern Burma.

The diplomat's argument is that they don’t want to set a precedent, for example of expulsion from the United Nations General Assembly. They seem not to mind that another precedent is being established: the dismissal of the suffering caused by the one of the worst political and humanitarian crises on earth. (One recalls Marie Antoinette's famous response to a question about the starving French public, which had no bread: “Let them eat cake!”)

This is one of the best measures of success as a diplomat, your ability to create convincing reasons for inaction. (From this one can conclude that diplomats are inherently immoral.)

They also rely on the many systemic blockades to action that exist, which they themselves have created, including:

• Sovereignty. Diplomats accept that the SPDC are sovereign rulers. If you enter Burma, for any reason, you have to ask Than Shwe first. In addition, to respond to a crisis you have to confirm that it exists. But access, including for such thing as a genocide investigation, and IDP aid, is not permitted (including via Thailand). This provides an excuse. If you can’t study a situation, first hand—there is no need or obligation to rely on activists who at the risk of their lives have documented what is happening—then it doesn’t exist, hence there is no reason to act. (This same argument is used by the U.N. agencies, and other large NGOs, that assist refugees but ignore IDPs. (Note: not every such NGO is ignoring the IDPs.)
• As far as action from the U.N. staff itself, beginning with Secretary General Kofi Annan, their bureaucratic excuse is that they are merely “international civil servants.” Power resides exclusively with the member states; they have none. (This is another interesting precedent that has been established.)
• Then there is the issue of mandate. Many nations believe that whatever happens in Burma, it is none of their business, even when they rotate onto the Security Council. (Of course, they might feel differently were they the victims of totalitarian rule.) Similarly, most NGOs working on Burma have narrow mandates, and use this as an excuse not to be involved in politics—in the push for democracy.
• “Burma is not a threat to international security and peace.” Security Council consideration is being blocked, now with Japan's lead, through the use of a World War II era interpretation of “international threat.” This interpretation, that only cataclysms approaching the scale of a world war justify action, is a means to emasculate the Security Council, to deny it the right to investigate and intervene on international threats of lesser scale and more recent evolution.

All of this, particularly the last, is firmly underlined by the fact that leading and permanent members of the Security Council, certainly China and Russia (but also arguably the United States, in other geopolitical situations), want the world to be insecure. Solving the problem in Burma would make the world more secure, not less, hence it is against their perceived self interest.

Than Shwe is emboldened now because of all of this, and also due to the re-pricing of energy supplies on the world market. He is flush with cash from the sale of natural gas, and has enough funds to build Pyinmana and to pay for weapons (from Russia, China and India) and spies. A good question one might ask is: why has no boycott been launched against ChevronTexaco, the acquirer of Unocal? And how can we increase the scale of the campaign against Daewoo?

Large demonstrations against the embassies and other offices of Russia, China, India and Japan would also be a smart move.

Than Shwe's contingency plan—all high achievers, and he is a high achiever, always consider and plan for the worst case scenario—is to divide and exhaust the democracy movement so that if for some reason he ultimately is forced to make a deal (e.g., if China reverses its position), it will be a good deal for him. Following the Indonesia model, this would be an amnesty for the crimes against humanity that he has committed and significant power-sharing for the Tatmadaw. Further, Than Shwe's family and cronies would not be stripped of their wealth, but instead would retain their financial power such that they could later reestablish their political power in a form more palatable to the diplomats and political leaders of the world.

In closing, I was at a seminar about Burma recently that as far as politics is concerned focused entirely on the international community. In the question and answer period I commented that the seminar had ignored the people of the country—the room was full of Burmese people—who surely would like to participate in the struggle for freedom. A panelist—a Thai journalist—then commented that the people of Burma were afraid and would do nothing. My translator asked me to refute this, and I responded that I wasn’t the right person to do it, since I am not Burmese. I write about Burma, document the abuses of the regime, and try to organize various pro-democracy initiatives. But the people of Burma themselves have to win their freedom. I’m doing everything I can to help, but they have to lead this change. (And then, when they are free, they will have to build a well-functioning nation and democracy.)

We waited, but no one in the room stood up and challenged the journalist.

Why it's okay to protest the Olympics

A very well written article. China expresses that the Olympics should not be protested because the games are simply a sporting event. This article explains otherwise. Very well done.

Check it out

Wow!

These protests are getting REALLY rough.

Protests hit the streets in Paris

Protests hut the streets in London

I'm glad to see this, but I wish these protesters wouldn't focus just on Tibet. Tibet is a major issue, but I think their cause would be helped by embracing supporters of the Darfur and Burma groups. However, it's good to see so many people at odds with the idea of Beijing Olympics.

Burma's new constitution to disallow amendments?

Check it out

This is a frightening thought. Changes to the constitution would require a "yes" vote by ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS?!

Londoners Disrupt Torch Ceremony

Check it out here

I hope this happens all over the world. I want it to be as embarrassing as possible for the Chinese. They may still have the Olympics in Beijing, but at least nobody will accord China any respect for it.

NLD's decision

There's been a lot of talk about their loyalties these days, but NLD has finally released a statement on how they believe voters should respond to the referendum, with a "No" vote. Personally, I think this is the right decision for those who can do it safely. We all know that the SPDC will rig the elections to say "Yes," however, those that voted no can proclaim so, or let UN or other organizations know. No-voters calling in on their own and telling of their decision could provide a small 3rd party observation device. I don't think a boycott is the wrong decision, just that "No" votes are a better decision.

Kind of funny?

Watching China and Burma guard each others' backs this week is something I'm finding amusing. I shouldn't, because people die for it, but they pretend like their word has any weight in the world of human rights. I'm sure that SPDC's advice regarding the Chinese Olympics and human rights is being taken very seriously by the IOC, but probably not quite as seriously as how much money China has.

Another interesting development, and one I applaud, is the IOC demanding that China has open internet access during the Olympics. This is a clever way to circumvent the argument China uses which states that the Olympics are blind to politics. IOC says that journalists need to be able to freely cover the Beijing Olympics as they've been able to do in years past, so in this way politics isn't being given attention, but at the same time, if the internet is open in China, you can bet that quite a few cats will be let out of quite a few bags.

I'm sure that China will create some sort of local network connected to unlimited internet in the area around the stadium, thus allowing nobody but reporters open access, thus beating any hope for those who live in China having access to the outside world. Still it is humorous to think of the stress that's probably causing in Beijing right now.

I Do Not Want To Go To The Zoo Any More

I Do Not Want To Go To The Zoo Any More

by

Htun Aung Gyaw

When I was seven, I thought that my parents were very stupid because they had a lot of money and they did not know how to spend it meaningfully. I loved bananas very much and I loved to go to the zoo and watch monkeys, lions, elephants, tigers, parrots and so on. It was my pleasure to watch those amazing creatures with different forms and colors.

Unfortunately, my parents only allowed me to eat two bananas per day and once per month to visit Rangoon Zoo. For me, it was not enough. I told myself, “When I grow up, I will eat many bananas and visit the Zoo every day.”

Time passed so quickly and I became an activist who tried to set things right because our country was under military rule since 1962. There was no freedom of expression, no freedom of organizing, no freedom of speech, no freedom of publication and no freedom to do business. In Burma, for 55 million people there were only four newspapers. The newspapers were totally controlled by the military junta and the junta used them as their propaganda tools. The government was all the time right and there were no questions about it.

I was one of the prominent student leaders in the1974 U Thant uprising. U Thant was the only Burmese who was elected as the UN Secretary General and we were very proud of him. He passed away with lung cancer in 1974 in a New York hospital, and his coffin was flown back to Burma according to his wishes. However, the government ignored making it as a state funeral. People were outraged and agitated, but they did not know how to respond to the government’s contempt. We Rangoon University students stepped in and snatched U Thant’s coffin, and brought it to the University compound on December 5, 1974. After five days, the government invaded the University and captured thousands of students. My friend Tin Maung Oo and I escaped before the raid. First I refused to leave the University compound and told Tin I’d rather be captured then leave our comrades. He said, “He who fights and runs will fight another day.” He added that if we were captured we could not help others and ourselves, because as prisoners we would not have freedom and our physical bodies would be controlled by the wardens. The worst thing was we’d be forced to live like slaves in prison.

After six months, we made another anti-government demonstration on June 6^th, 1975, to mark the one-year anniversary of the labor strike. After that, Tin Maung Oo was announced as a wanted fugitive, and two months later I was captured by the military unit number seven. The military intelligence officer, Captain Mg Mg Thwin, told me that we both were intellectuals and he wanted me to cooperate with him. He said, “The corporals are not educated. They only know how to torture people and they enjoy it. You have to choose the easy way or the hard way, think about it. Tell me, who are your associates? And what is your ideology? Who is the leader? Do you know Tin Maung Oo?”

I chose the painful way because I did not have a choice. I did not want to tell them who were my comrades and where they lived. If I did, they all would be captured and tortured. I heard how horrible the torture chamber was, how bad the cells were structured, and so on. I decided to keep my mouth shut and strongly believed that it was my duty to protect my comrades to continue the anti-government movement. I knew they would torture me if I did not cooperate with them and tell them what they wanted to know.

Finally, the captain gave up and allowed his subordinates to torture me. The person who entered the room was over 6 ft tall and had a thick body. He snarled at me and I smiled back. He was surprised to see me smile at him but my heart was pounding first. He told me that he could break my neck with one hand if I did not tell him who my comrades were. I told him that I was a loner. I admitted that I participated in the anti government demonstrations but I did not have any associates. He suddenly slapped my face but I blocked his right arm and grabbed it with my left hand. He said, “Do you know martial arts?” I said, “No I don’t.” I lied to him. I had learned martial arts for a year and knew how to block the punches. He called other members of his team and they tied my hands and hung up the rope into the ceiling. He brought a thick bamboo stick and started beating my butt with force. It was very painful but I did not want to give up and promised myself to do whatever it took, to give up even my life, to protect others. Every beating made me moan but I never screamed. They started beating me around 9pm. They changed persons but the bamboo stick was still beating my butt.

After four hours of non-stop beating and questioning, they were exhausted and told me that I was very stubborn but they would break me within a day. I told them I was a loner and I did it alone. But they did not believe me. Every beating on my butt made me dizzy and I wanted to vomit sometimes while they were torturing me. Sometimes captains came in and persuaded me that my life was worth living. Why didn’t I save my life by cooperating with them and tell them what they wanted? I refused.

Then, the big guy came in and beat me with a stick. This time the bamboo stick was broken on the far end. He grabbed the broken end and beat me with end which was once the handle. I heard the noise Whipped and I fell into the darkness.

When my consciousness came back first thing I saw was a yellow plain, then I saw the outline of the subjects near me, for example the table, the chair and persons. They slowly appeared as a black outline on the yellow plain. It was wonderful to see such a scene because I was an artist. I knew the outline, shade and shadows, so I smiled at what I saw and enjoyed it. Suddenly, someone yelled at me, “This motherfucker is still smiling,” and then I heard a Whipped noise and blacked out again. When I gained consciousness my head was soaked with water, I was lying on the floor and my hands were not tied anymore. I heard the voice of the intelligence unit chief, “He is dying, stop torturing him and bring his associates from the prison and we will question him with them together, face to face.”

They brought my comrades who were captured before me and who promised me to keep their mouths shut, but they did not keep their promises. That was the reason the torturers knew about me and wanted to hear from me that I was one of the leaders. They wanted to know all our members’ names. When I saw my coward friends who were begging to the torturers, my morale went down and I admitted that I was a leader. But I never gave them my members’ names who were still at large. After I admitted that I was a leader and my role in the movement, they stopped torturing me.

I was transferred to a notorious prison called Insein. Many people went insane in Insein prison and never recovered. Imagine eating a little rice every day, but rice peppered by bugs. Imagine learning not to “go” in the small pot left in your shadowy cell for nearly 24 hours, holding it in until you heard the guard coming to take away your waste and

then hurrying it up. Everyone learned to do this, otherwise the coffin-like cell would be filled with the smell for many hours. And imagine tearing off the bottom of your prison clothes a little bit at a time for toilet paper, until your legs grew more and more exposed. Many of the prisoners did this, but I decided I preferred my legs to stay covered.

I was put in a cell, which was 8 feet long and 6 feet wide. I was in No.5 cell, which is for dead roll inmates. After three months, a warden opened my cell in the morning and brought me to the hall in the main jail entrance. I found myself standing in the front of five civilian judges. The warden ordered me to pull up my shirt and show my upper body, the judges looked at my body while I was circling in front of them. There were no tortured marks in my upper body. Then the warden ordered me to pull up my longi (it was a Burmese dress like a skirt, it is also called “Sarong” in Thai). I lifted the longi and showed my legs, there were no scars on it. Then one of the judges said, “Ok! We did not find any bruise and scars in his body, you can go now”.

Then I told them I have scars on my butt and I would show them. Suddenly, two judges quickly said, “No! you don’t need to” and waving their hands but they were too late, I lifted my sarong up to my hip and showed my butt which had deep black strike lines all over it and still swollen. When I faced back to the judges, all looked pale and their jaws were dropped.

I was sent directly to the notorious cell number six because of my misbehavior to the judges. I thought I won the battle on that day to expose how we were tortured badly. Number six cell is double door cell there were no air circulation. Some prisoners got asthma in that cell, some went insane because you cannot see any one, any tree or any living creatures. It was very hard to breath. They put me in this cell for 16 days and sent me back to my previous cell 5.

After a week I was sentenced to life by military tribunal without lawyers present. There were three judges; they were from the army, navy and air force. Before they sentenced me the judges asked, “Are you guilty or not?.” I asked them, “how do you define guilty?” Do you think against the government and demanding for democracy is guilty? The judges were agitated and one shouted at me, “Just say guilty or not , you do not have the right to question me”. I smiled back and said, “Not Guilty”. Then they made recession for half hour. Then all our group members were called back to the military tribunal and one of the judges read the sentenced. I was sentenced to life with two others and the rest were sentenced to 10 to 15 years terms. Then the judge said, “What do you want to say?” no one said a word and all were sad except me. I stood up and said, “You guys sentenced me to life, but do you think your government will still life time in power?.

After my sentence I was moved to No.4 cell there I stayed for another eight months. Then I was transferred to the hall No.3 which was designed for political prisoners.

When I was in the cells, I walked back and forth in the cell 2700 steps per day and did push ups 90 times per day and squats 90 times a day. I encouraged myself to be strong and ready for the revolution. I did not want to give up and I never will.

I was released after five years because of the amnesty order 2/80 in 1980. All the political prisoners were released, including me. Before I was released, they told me that we were criminal not political prisoners, so we could only get reduced jail terms. Every day my parents and parents and family members of political prisoners waited outside the prison after the government announced that they gave general amnesty to all political prisoners.

But the government released criminals first and still maintained all political prisoners. They reduced two thirds of the jail term for all criminals and released them if they served one third of their jail term. They also calculated the jail terms of political prisoners as criminals and if the prisoners served the required jail term, they were released as criminals.

For me, I had a life sentence and I only served five years. I could not be released as a criminal because of my jail term. I asked the wardens why I was not released yet. They said I was a criminal. After 16 days of the amnesty order, finally I was released as a political prisoner at midnight. My parents waited for ten days in front of the prison for my release and after ten days they were heartbroken and went home.

When I arrived home I was surprised to see coconut trees in my compound. They were only 15 feet high when I was captured but now they were 25 feet tall and all other trees were so big and tall. I climbed the fence and jumped inside our compound. Then I rang the bell. My father woke up and asked, “Who is it?” I said, “Dad, I am home.” He ran down to the first floor but forgot the keys. Then my mother followed after him and threw the keys to my dad. We talked all night long until dawn.

I do not want to go to Zoo any more and understand that its animals and birds are lifetime prisoners like me in the prison. I understand the lions and tigers pacing back and forth as I did in the cell. Their lives are far worse than mine because they do not have a chance to be free again. One good thing is I still love to eat bananas but not many, only one or two sometimes, not every day.

I doubt SPDC will give you a fair election

I doubt SPDC will give you a fair election

…
By Matthew Wilson

I doubt SPDC will give you a fair election if you just ask for it, and any election they do give you is a bid to stall time and trap political opponents (i.e. - 2010). Given their past actions, I’d consider any election they’re willing to hold a trap. Were I Burmese, I would not run in 2010, because if I beat the Tatmadaw’s party, I would enjoy free room and board at the Insein Hilton (jail). They are masters at stalling, and seek only to cause division and frustration amongst those who desire democracy. How can that election occur with SPDC in power?

Either way, it does not matter. Before anyone can serve in office, SPDC MUST BE TAKEN DOWN. All arguments otherwise are simply counting your eggs before they hatch. I can tell you what I’d do if I won the lottery, but I still have yet to win it. In the same way, you still have to deal with SPDC, and pandering to the generals will not put you in a position to satisfy the will of the people.

Moving on, NLD has failed to provide democracy. They are too trusting of SPDC, and they are too dependent on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. They are too dependent on the world. Aggressive action is needed immediately. The same is true with NCGUB. I have great respect for NLD and NCGUB, they have done much for their country, but we can not rely upon them if we want democracy in Burma. Similarly, the UN, US, ASEAN, and EU cannot be asked to bring democracy to Burma. Accept their help and pressure on the regime, but sure, don’t accept conditional help. The people of Burma must get democracy for themselves.

This requires an organization that is willing to mobilize Burmese (by Burmese, I don’t mean Bamar… I mean all from Burma) on three levels: Internationally, on the Burmese border, and in Burma itself. I can go further into detail if necessary, but I will do so at a later time. Suffice to say it’s time for action, with or without NCGUB, with or without NLD, and with or without Daw Suu Kyi.

If the world acted according to my wishes_ the world affairs do not occur according to my wishes, but if it did_ it would happen the following way. Once SPDC is taken down(easier said than done), an interim government should be imposed. The interim government would consist of Aung San Suu Kyi, and those who were elected in 1990. The reason I say this is because I trust Daw Suu Kyi not to attempt to hold power for herself should the public decide otherwise and she will be very hesitant to use violence (post SPDC violence will further destabilize the country). Also, she’s already accepted among people of all ethnicities, and people will not wish to rebel against her… especially not violently.

A Post on the 8888 User Group

What I have to say today may be a bitter pill to swallow; however, conditions are necessary for it to be said. There are times when violence is justified, and in Burma, such a time is now. It is an unpleasant statement, but one that reflects reality. The pioneers of modern Democracy stated that all men have a God given, natural right to their life, liberty, and property. John Locke argued that one has not only a right, but an obligation to protect one's self and one's community. Whenever protection of these rights can be successful by non-violent means, it should be done so. It is too easy to rationalize a case for war when none exists, thus leading many to unjustly rationalize violent coups, power grabs, and acts of vengeance. However, how long must a community suffer before it can be determined that fighting back is justified? How long has nonviolence been the mandate of the resistance? How many chances has SPDC had to resolve this non-violently? What has been the result? Why? Nonviolence relies upon international aid to manifest its results, and the international community is not willing to help Burma beyond impotent sanctions. Failing that, non-violence relies on the mercy of the oppressor. To put it simply, the non-violent resistance has no leverage. SPDC has successfully bypassed our most gentle recourse, and so, there is but one left.

Let us take the case of the many successful non-violent revolutions of the past: The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Gandhi's peaceful ousting of the British in India, and Martin Luther King in America. These all have common factors which have allowed for success. They all existed under a semi-autocratic regime (maybe not the case with America... but that depends on who you were), each country we use for case study relies on the international community for their economy, and they all had some modicum of free speech. Loyalty of the army also plays some small part, but that is influenced by the sureness of victory. Generally speaking, the non-violent revolutionaries were able to bring international shame to the occupiers via semi-free media and demonstrations, and thus create a potential for economic problems and loss of prestige to any illegitimate power. You will find many unsuccessful nonviolent revolutions as well: Uzbekistan, Tiananmen Square in China, and Algeria. In these countries, the regime is in complete control and the media is state run. When protests occur, atrocity follows. I would argue that there are many more failed non-violent revolutions than successful ones.

The same is the case in Burma. Not only does the regime have control of the media and army, they also do not require the international community's approval. Because of this, there is no reason to transition to Democracy. This is a death or cake situation for the Generals. They can possibly be harassed, threatened, and economically unsure for the rest of their lives, or they can simply continue to live comfortably by continuing to do what they do. Where is the incentive for them to give up control?

Incentive will not be found in the international community’s action, and you can thank China for that. China does not worry about an inwardly unstable country next door, at least not one that provides so many benefits. Not only does China sell weapons to Burma, get cheap labor from Burma, they also have access to a plentiful supply of energy in a world facing an energy crisis. Beyond this, it would be a threat to China if there were a Western-friendly liberal democracy directly to the south. Not only would China's people start getting ideas about democracy if Burma became democratic, but China would also have to worry about the United States moving in too close for comfort. They will use their position as permanent UN Security Council members to veto any potential moves from the UN to help bring democracy to Burma. Furthermore, showing his naiveté, Gambari has recently hailed the Junta’s election announcement as a positive step. It is not a positive step; it is a lie and a trap. You clearly cannot count on the rest of the world helping you obtain democracy, and you cannot rely on SPDC to bring you democracy.

Since the citizens of Burma have no legal or peaceful recourse through the International community, their leaders, or nonviolent revolution, it is time for Burmese to create their own incentive for the government to provide democracy. The regime’s generals, protectors, facilitators, and guardians must all fear for their lives, liberty, and property. This is something every person can see to. Western NGOs and nonviolent resistance leaders say that war is never justified, but during the Saffron Uprising they leveled criticism at ethnic armies for not impeding the military’s march to Yangon. Are they really against war, or do they wish not to dirty their hands? I do not mean this in offense, but it is time to stop morally bashing the patriot who uses violence to secure his community’s liberty. Freedom must be earned by all. It is every Burmese citizen’s obligation to bring democracy, and there is a part to play for those using both violence and non-violence.

Violence and non-violence must be used together in a synchronized effort. The Burmese people must support their revolutionary leaders, and their revolutionary leaders must deliver measurable results. These leaders, whether individuals or an organization, must realize that SPDC is not a bargaining partner, and is in the business of self-preservation. A legitimate interim government has already been decided, elected in 1990. An interim constitution has already been drafted, again in 1990. SPDC is the only obstacle between the violent anarchy of Burma today, and the prosperous, free Burma of tomorrow. Thus, all effort should focus not on principles or reconciliation, as that has been shown impossible with SPDC, but instead on employing all methods necessary and possible to force SPDC to fall.

I feel that the works of Thomas Paine are applicable to the Burmese situation, specifically: “Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it.” We all know violence in unjust application can be the most dreadful thing to suffer or inflict. However, the enemy has clearly chosen his path. If he’ll allow no other resolution, then let him suffer the consequences. Desperate times call for desperate actions, and no time is so desperate as now.

How I got started in Burmese politics

I will be dead honest. I started this without much of a passion for Burma. I, like many people, suffered from "Sympathy Fatigue." You know what I mean. As an American, you hear about people preaching for causes all day long. Genocide in Darfur, Save the Whales, Global Warming, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Tibet, and many other causes seem to be competing for our attention, and after a while you just don't care anymore. You learn the attitude, "Hey, people are suffering everywhere in the world, there's nothing I can do about it. I might as well enjoy my life." Essentially, this is how I felt until the summer of 2007.

I was at a bar with a friend, when he told me of his plans to go abroad and volunteer. It sounded very interesting. I'd never been outside of North America, and I do have a broad interest in culture and politics of other countries. This was a good opportunity to travel cheap, and hey, I could do some good at the same time. We looked at a myriad of countries to volunteer in, deciding which sounded most interesting. He mentioned that a former coworker of ours was going to volunteer on the Thai-Burma border helping political refugees. I thought it sounded good, and we looked into the program. Unfortunately, my friend ended up being unable to go, but my brother volunteered to go with me. So we bought our plane tickets to Mae Sot, Thailand and left. I suppose it is cliche to hear people talk about how seeing another country can change your life, but I found out that it really is true. I found my point of view regarding life to be much different after my trip. I learned the usual things: How lucky I am, to be grateful for what I have, how other people's lives are. I also learned that much of the suffering in the world is both needless, and beyond the control of the large majority of those put through it. None of these people are inferior to Americans, they just have the misfortune to be born where others have an unreasonable desire for control and an army to keep it. I also learned that no matter how miserable your situation, you can still be happy. It doesn't mean you shouldn't work hard to improve your situation, but it's still possible to enjoy your life.

During my time in Mae Sot, I met many people who had been through hell and back. Many of these people were intelligent, hardworking, and generous. I learned about the nature of Burmese and Thai people, culture, politics, and (perhaps most importantly) food. I had the honor of meeting many people involved in the struggle for democracy in Burma.

One such person was "Red Dragon", who works for an organization I cannot relay to you, because to give away his identity would put him in serious physical danger. He has sacrificed his future for his country, and he works daily to help his country obtain a government that represents its people.

I also had the honor of meeting with Mr. Myo Myint. Myo Myint was a SLORC (the name for the Burmese military government until they realized how ominous SLORC sounded) soldier until his arm and leg were blown off by artillery detonating a minefield he had finished laying. In the hospital, he learned a great deal about politics in his country, and the repressive nature of the military government. He got involved in politics, helping a well known democratic party. He was subsequently arrested, and imprisoned. Myo Myint, a disabled Burmese army veteran, was tortured in prison for 14 years. He was finally released, and he now sits in a Refugee camp in Thailand, waiting to join his family in the US.

Both Red Dragon and Myo Myint will be regularly contributing to this blog.

Anyways, during my time in Mae Sot, I learned how much these people deserved a government that represented their interests. I realized how very possible that reality is. There is already a legitimate leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, whose NLD party soundly defeated the Military party in 1990. She's recognized both within Burma and internationally for her vast sacrifice and effort towards democracy. Were she to have the ability to govern, it is very likely that peace and stability would reign in Burma. Alas, the military regime, known these days as SPDC (State Peace and Development Council), has had her locked under house arrest for the majority of the last 18 years, and has even attempted to assassinate her.

Things have been quite eventful in Burma lately. Not only did massive non-violent uprisings against the government take place in September 2007, but world has started pretending to pay attention to this issue. The UN has taken some token actions without much movement towards creating progress. That's what the UN does though.

So, the reason I brought you through this whole diatribe was to let you know why I decided to become involved. First, having my perspective changed made me realize that all those suffering people DO matter. They are just like you, and they have people they care about, and the majority of them simply want to raise families, make business, and lead normal lives. They deserve this. Moreover, a simple and possible alternative to the current situation exists. Practically a ready made government is waiting in exile, already possessing the consent of those they mean to govern. All that is needed is to take down the SPDC regime. I feel this can be done. How? That is for future entries to discuss. I look forward to hearing your input, questions, thoughts, and concerns. Thanks for your interest!