Thursday, March 22, 2012
US invited to send observers to Burma's elections
The invitation was for two election representatives plus three journalists to receive permission to observe on election day, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. The Association of South-East Asian Nations said Tuesday that it had been invited to send a delegation of about 25 monitors for the vote. Nuland called the invitation a "welcome" move by the Burmese government. "This is a good first step. Burma hasn’t allowed international observation before," she said. "But it does fall short of international complete transparency on an election, and we hope they’ll continue to keep the system open and open it further." The vote is being held to fill 48 vacant Parliament seats.//DPAWashington - The Burmese government has invited the United States to send observers for the country's April 1 parliamentary by-election, the State Department said Wednesday.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Mai Soong Kha on Tai National Day
The Shan National Day, the 7th. of February symbolises the day when all the Shan Leaders and the peoples of the Shan State got together in 1947 to adopt the Shan flag and the National Anthem. This was a very important occasion because we, as a nation, were about to embark on the most important decision in the history of the Shan State. On the 14th. of February 1947 Shan and other Non-Burman ethnic Leaders signed the "Panglong Agreement" with Bogyoke Aung San, who represented the Burman ethnic state, Burma Proper, to ask the British government for joint independence. A Union Constitution was drafted and passed in 1948, which was witnessed by the British Government Officials. Thus the Union of Burma came into existence.
According to the Agreement and Constitution the Union of Burma was made up of several states and not one single state"Myanmar or Burma" as termed by the military junta, and as perceived by most international communities. The Agreement also stated that all member states should have equal status and equal opportunities and that the Shan State and Karenni State have the right to secede from the Union after a period of ten years which was the year 1958. The Shan and other non-Burman ethnic states put their faith and trust in their more experienced partner, the Burman politicians and were ready to work with them for the benefit of the Union. Alas! The non-Burman ethnic nationals were betrayed and the Panglong Agreement" was dishonoured when the military staged a coup and immobilised our Leaders by putting them in prison. The Costitution was also destroyed and the Union of Burma was dissolved
By destroying the Constitution the military regimes thought they could put the states together by using brutal force but they have not succeeded in the forty years of their regime. The country has not progressed. The only claim that the military dictatorship can make is that they have brought sorrow and suffering to millions of people.
THE PANGLONG AGREEMENT, 1947 (7th February 1947)
A conference having been held at Panglong , attended by certain Members of the Executive Council of the Governor of Burma, all Saohpas and representative of the Shan States, the Kachin Hills and the Chin Hills:
The Members of the conference, believing that freedom will be more speedily achieved by the Shans, the Kachins and the Chins by their immediate co-operation with the Interim Burmese Government:
1.A Representative of the Hill Peoples, selected by the Governor on the recommendation of representatives of the Supreme Council of the United Hill Peoples (SCOUHP), shall be appointed a Counsellor for Frontier Areas shall be given executive authority by similar means.
2.The said Counsellor shall also be appointed a Member of the Governor's Executive Council, without portfolio, and the subject of Frontier Areas brought within the purview of the Executive Council by Constitutional Convention as in the case of Defence and External Affairs. The Counsellor for Frontier Areas shall be given executive authority by similar means.
3.The said Counsellor shall be assisted by two Deputy Counsellors representing races of which he is not a member. While the two Deputy Counsellors should deal in the first instance with the affairs of their respective areas and the Counsellor with all the remaining parts of the Frontier Areas, they should by Constitutional Convention act on the principle of joint responsibility.
4.While the Counsellor, in his capacity of Member of the Executive Council, will be the only representative of the Frontier Areas on the Council, the Deputy Counsellors shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Council when subjects pertaining to the Frontier Areas are discussed.
5.Though the Governor's Executive Council will be augmented as agreed above, it will not operate in respect of the Frontier Areas in any manner which would deprive any portion of those Areas of the autonomy which it now enjoys in internal administration. Full autonomy in internal administration for the Frontier Areas is accepted in principle.
6.Though the question of demarcating and establishing a separated Kachin State within a Unified Burma is one which must be relegated for decision by the Constituent Assembly, it is agreed that such a State is desirable. As a first step towards this end, the Counsellor for Frontier Areas and the Deputy Counsellors shall be consulted in the administration of such areas in the Myitkyina and the Bhamo Districts as are Part II Scheduled Areas under the Government of Burma Act of 1935.
7.Citizens of the Frontier Areas shall enjoy rights and privileges which are regarded as fundamental in democratic countries.
8.The arrangements accepted in this Agreement are without prejudice to the financial autonomy now vested in the Federated Shan States.
9.The arrangements accepted in this Agreement are without prejudice to the financial assistance which the Kachin Hills and the Union Hills are entitled to receive from the revenues of Burma, and the Exeutive Council will examine with the Frontier Areas Counsellor and Deputy Counsellors the feasibility of adopting for the Kachin Hills and the Chin Hills financial arrangement similar to those between Burma and the Federated Shan States.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Leader
Today even we have good opportunity inside of Burma we even can't help or support anything to bring Burma to be Democracy country because we have nothing on hand. Yes, we all thinking we work hard for nation but in real, that not enough for make any change in Burma or even in Shan state.
How many people can work full time for nation ? in the other side there has over 400,000 soldiers with full weapon and ready for kill us anytime plus we not only fight with Burma army, we also fight with powerfull countries China and Russian that hiding to backup Burma in United Nation as well.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not blame anyone. I just try to point what is the position we are standing now and how much we have to work hard for our nation.
We talk so many for the word "UNITY" it's enough for talk let build and make it come true. So, give me your hands and I will give mine to work hard for our nation.
by : Sai Sai Tip (Maisoongkha.com)
Letters from Shan State
If it’s about delicacies, the following titles are your meat and drink: Khao Buk and Khao Yaku, Tai Sar Mei Shan, Nam Phit Phoo and Green Tea.
If it’s about festivals, go read “The Poy Sang Long Festival,” “The Taunggyi Hot Air Balloon Festival,” “Flowing Christmas Day”, Water Festival in Kengtung”, “Thamanae Festival,” “New Crop Ceremony”, “Manau Dance Festival” and “Akhar traditional wedding”.
Then there are compositions on politics, life in Shan State, hunting and a true love story plus two poems, many of which are quite poignant, especially when you remember that they had been written by youths who had just started to learn to write in English 9-months earlier.
A few of them I really enjoyed as I went through the 93-page booklet published by the School for Shan State Nationalities Youth (SSSNY), popularly known as Charm Tong’s School, a tribute to its founder and administrator.
One was about a girl student’s reminiscences on her life on a bus in Taunggyi. “I hurried on to the bus,” she wrote, “and already the bus was extremely full. I only had room for my two feet… The smell on the bus was terrible, like a mouse that had been dead for three days… I had to push and also pull people to be able to get out of the bus”. In the evening, it was the same scene.
It was like that day in and day out. But then though long being away from all of what she wrote about, she still “remember them and miss them much: the bad smell, the smell of Thanakha (Burmese traditional makeup), the innocent faces, hungry faces, guilty faces, selfish faces, and the views from the windows of the bus…”
Another is about a boy student’s life on the village when he was younger, young enough to enjoy playing Ma Tong Tang (Stilts) and racing it with other boys. “In my childhood days, ma-don-dang was my life,” he remembers.
But then one day Burma Army soldiers arrived at the village with their guns blazing. “Some one grabbed my hands and took me into a trench. It was my father… (I thought) “Where is my ma-don-dang?” Without thinking, I got up to go out of the trench. My father held me tightly with anger. “Where are you going?” he asked. “I am going to (bring in) my ma-don-dang,” I replied. “Are you crazy? You are going to be killed doing such bullshit!” he roared like a hungry tiger. The happy evening had turned into a bloody evening. The village had nearly turned into a graveyard.
Then there is a rather strange story about a boy who became a novice monk in order to escape being a fighter in the Mong Tai Army led by the late Khun Sa (1934-2007). However when the MTA surrendered in 1996, the expected peace did not come. What followed were the forced relocations that were to displace at least 300,000 people from 1,500 villages, an event reported in full by the Shan Human Rights Foundation’s “Dispossessed”.
Then one day he did a strange ting. One day, I saw the news about SSA-S (Shan State Army-South) fighting with SPDC around the Thai-Shan border. I was excited and I decided to go to Loi Tai Leng, a camp on the border, to be a soldier. When I arrived, I asked to become a soldier. They said, “You are still young-you cannot be a soldier. To be a soldier you must be 18 years old.” So, they put me in school first.
There are 2-3 other accounts I really liked, but I suggest you to read them as I did while I waited at the Chiangmai airport for my delayed flight to Bangkok.
For further information, please email to sssny@loxinfo.co.th
Shall We Give Daw Suu, A Chance?
Scanning through the media, both electronic and printed points to the idea that those who have Cetena and interest in Burma seems to be quite impatient. The major driving force behind, is their own vested interest rather the welfare of the country and people. Viewing internationally, China which is not shy of openly supporting the Junta has succeeded in freezing the Security Council. She opposed issuing a presidential statement on Burma, though not legally binding, unlike a resolutionญcan only be issued with a consensus, even though the majority of the countries in the 15-member Security Council had favored issuing a presidential statement after closed door consultations and briefing by Ibrahim Gambari. “We were disappointed by China’s unwillingness to support a Presidential statement,” said Zalmay Khalizad, the US Ambassador to the UN. The first time that a top US official has come out openly to state that China was not cooperating. It was evident that China and Russia are against sanctions in Burma were counterproductive. Not only a dictatorial country will support another dictatorial country, as I often quote modern Hitler and Mussolini will support a modern Burmese Franco in their hegemonic attempt. Power Politics couple with Geo-strategic factors is the order of the day.
The international community should be reconsider of giving credit to the Genocide Beijing Olympic next year, when Liu Shaowu, the Deputy Director of the Olympic Security Command Center, said the security forces would stop any form of demonstration at or around venues and would be snuffed out far from Olympic sites. With 28,000 journalists expected to attend, the Aug. 8-24 Olympics offer a rare chance for protesters to express grievances against China's Communist Government on issues of human rights including supporting dictatorial regimes and religious freedom. Will the international community stay with folded arms, as Beijing will use heavy-handed policing at the games and prevent the expression of democracy and human rights is still to be seen. Perhaps the reminiscence of Berlin Olympics should be considered (when Jessie Owens won four Gold medals and Hitler never claps once) for the aim and ideals of the world’s Olympic.
Some local activist construe that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has prolonged the lifespan of Burma’s repressive Junta to manipulate events to its advantage and cited examples of 1994, where the butcher Than Shwe met Daw Su for the first time where with much media highlight she was released. She was arrested again in 2000 for making a trip to Mandalay and later released in 2002 where the world thought that there will be a political breakthrough as the Junta slyly released a statement, titled “Turning of a New Page, and looking forward to a better future, in improving the social welfare of our diverse people.” But the “Depaeyin Massacre,” showed the true color of the Burmese Generals. Even though Razali did nothing except for his company Gambari has initiated breakthrough, “In the interest of the nation, I stand ready to cooperate with the government in order to make this process of dialogue a success and welcome the necessary good offices' role of the United Nations to help facilitate our efforts in this regard,” soured the hopes and aspirations of the people of Burma and the world.
Daw Suu has sacrificed herself to be used to see if there's a chance that will benefit the people of Burma. What a noble, Nobel lady? To engage in dialogue with the most hideous and cruel Burmese army generals, who are bent on maintaining their power either by hook or by crook which may or may not lead to genuine dialogue, is really a risky business. In view of the fact that the Junta's self-appointed National Convention one and half decade to accomplish, Daw Suu, has called for a 'meaningful and time-bound dialogue', which will provide the right framework for the Junta to find a way forward to this very serious situation. Obviously there is more skepticism and everybody takes it with a pinch of salt of what the Junta says and does as “lying the very concept of truth,” is their norm. Knowing full well that the Junta has a good record of playing dialogue only long enough to allow international attention to drift away is compounded with the broken promise to Gambari that the Junta has promised not to arrest any more. Perhaps the Burmese saying of “Min Hmar Thit Sar Lu Hmar Ga T้” literally translated as the government without adhering to its word of honor is equal to man that does not keep a promise, is anathema to the Junta
But the small steps are still welcome said Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to the UN who warned that the Junta should not use the process of talks and invitations to Mr. Gambari as a substitute for substantive progress on ending military repression and moving the country toward democracy. “A process for process’s sake will not be acceptable,” he said. In the Security Council only China and Russia highlight the positive elements as they themselves are great liars as far as democracy and human rights are concerned.
Even as Daw Suu was allowed to meet with her advisers for the first time in years, the regime was frantically dishing out promotions to riot police officers while also reshuffling top military ranks that tend to disobey their order to shoot. This is a response to discontent in the ranks. One should recollect that the members of the security forces are just as able as any ordinary person to see that the regime has committed violence against the heart and soul of Burma. By exploiting this conflicting set of loyalties among soldiersญto the regime who in most cases has conscripted them on one hand, and to their Buddhist and human values on the otherญthe movement is showing signs that they have been able to effectively sever most of the remaining ties between the regime and the people. The security forces and the monks were victims of the system, and there was no reason to have a war between victims and victims. One victim wears yellow and the other green uniforms and there was no reason for blood to be shed. Hannah Arendt asserted, “Where commands are no longer obeyed, the means of violence are of no use.”
From this perspective, the regime may be closer than it dares to acknowledge to its final days. Once the security forces begin to join the side of the people en masse refusing to carry out unjust orders the system will no longer be capable of sustaining itself. With no moral authority or political legitimacy remaining, the only thing holding the regime in place is the threat of force. But with every bullet or baton used against the people of Burma, the regime reveals that their ‘strength’ will in fact be their undoing. And now with sustained pressure from the international community, an increasingly tenuous hold on the country’s remaining sources of economic support, and more signs that its own defenders may be less willing to risk being on the losing side of the actualญas well as moralญconflict, the issue is becoming not whether this regime will disappear, but when.
Many tend to believe that the mission of the UN Special Envoy, Ibrahim Gambari, was a failure as he could not meet Senior-General Than Shwe. And prior to Gambari’s visit, the SPDC expelled the head of the UN Country Team in Burma for criticizing the regime. The SPDC is being defiant and aggressive, showing that it does not care what the world thinks. But a meticulous study according to Sao Harn Yawnhwe, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. He pointed out, why in the first place did Than Shwe agree to talk with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, albeit under certain conditions? He need not even have addressed the question of talking to her if it was really a non-issue. Why did he appoint a ‘Relations Minister’ even before she agreed to cooperate? What was he trying to prove? And to whom? ``he reasoned.
Why was Daw Aung San Suu Kyi now the center of attention as show in the Burmese TV regularly if she is a persona non grata as previously describe by the Burmese Generals? Also, why did the Junta agree to let UN Human Rights Rapporteur, Sergio Pinheiro, to visit the country and investigate the recent demonstrations when he had been refused entry for four years? What is the rationale of the Junta making these gestures? One of the clear answers is that they are trying to buy time as usual to get off the pressure off. They are hoping that in time, the world will forget about Burma and the military can continue to do its business as usual.
It would be na๏ve to assume that the military is trying to find a way to solve the problem. The Burmese generals will not to give it up if they can help it. But they also know they need to respond to the public discontent and the international outrage. They have to find a way out. The Generals also knows that the economic problems will not go away soon. Some of them understand that beating up and killing the monks was a fatal error and that they have crossed the line which they cannot return. Besides the international consensus is also proving to be far more sustained than in the past and the end line is that the Burmese Generals and their cronies are hurting and trying to find a way out of this quagmire. Many a democracy advocates are afraid that the generals will once again succeed in hoodwinking the international community. They want to step up the pressure with sanctions and get the UN Security Council to pass a binding resolution. In other words they want the generals to admit defeat and ask for mercy which will never happens and as Sao Harn has vividly pointed out is also not the best way to bring about a change in Burma.
In any struggle for rights or freedom, a critical variable in a movement’s survival is its ability to adapt; to continue to come up with new and creative tactics that keep the oppressor on notice, and remind the people that the will to resist is shared by their neighbors and countrymen. Observers of nonviolent resistance will sometimes point to the extreme use of violence by a regime as evidence against a movement’s potential success. But an oppressor’s willingness to use repression is not necessarily a determinant of nonviolent success or failure (refer to the cases of Chile and South Africa) because it is not up to the members of the regime themselves to do the shooting, but those in the security forces whose job it is to carry out their orders.
The Burmese Junta derives its sustenance from the crucial support it receives from China who is trying to project its military power in its southward movement into the Indian Ocean. India has no principle, and shamelessly the world’s biggest democracy is not promoting democracy in its neighboring country as it could view things through the lens of national interest. If India, China and ASEAN were to put some teeth in the negotiations of the beauty and the beast there could be some hope. But it is far fledged. Many lessons are learned with the latest Yellow Revolution. The Social Gospel with the Burmese Buddhist became prominent, the clear line between Bama and Mahar Bama (against the Union Spirit) in as much the Ethnic and the Mahar Ethnics (separatist racist) were clearly drawn not to mention that the megaphone diplomacy which the Diaspora is so cherished lead to nowhere. The clear leaders come out with their silent and correct works such as Daw Suu of inside Burma and Sao Harn Yawnhwe of Diaspora and it is to be seen whether the self appointed little Bogyoke Aung San (unwittingly becoming Bo Shu Maung) would follow their lead is for the future to decide.
Even as the UN officials are busy congratulating themselves and preparing for more visits, while other countries happily name new envoys and core groups and discussion panels, let all the people who are involved put up the much needed pressure. The UN Security Council should implement an arms embargo. The Bush administration, which announced targeted banking sanctions against top officials and tycoons, needs to accelerate their implementation, Canada, France has followed suit and the European Union should do more. The censure forms the international community although bellows from the Junta as being bullied by the big powers, the Junta has to make concession to the UN Special Human Rights Rapporteur Professor Pinherio who confirmed that he found no improvements in the human rights situation and reiterated concerns over the harsh detention conditions faced by political prisoners. “Regional governments, individually and as members of the United Nations, have an important role in working for the improvement of human rights in Burma.” was his message and regional human rights activists welcomed Prof. Pinheiro’s statement and urged leaders at the ASEAN Summit not to backslide on pressure for the Burmese military regime. The signs of little progress are welcome but there remain major steps that need to be taken to ensure that the people of Burma have their voice heard about their own future.
Sao Harn has wisely pointed out that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has give up everything to better the lot of the people of Burma. She has patiently endured all hardships. Can we let her take the lead in this matter? She is continuing to meet the Junta’s representative working out some modalities including a time frame and consulting with the National League for Democracy, and has invited others, including the ethnic nationalities, to join her in making the dialogue process a success. Do we not believe that she knows what she is doing? But a close reading of Daw Suu's note shows that she is hardly naive or sanguine about success. Let us allow Daw Suu to speak for herself. Let her determine the timing and set the agenda and don’t rock the boat.
All these consultations will take time. There is a reasonable chance that, in spite of themselves, the generals will have to enter into a substantive dialogue. The key is for the outside world to give the process a chance. Gambari’s mission was to help establish a dialogue, in that he has been successful. It is a much larger achievement than it seems given that the generals do not want a dialogue. Now there is a slight chance that the peaceful uprising of the people and the monks, which the junta brutally crushed, might yet lead to a negotiated political process for long-suffering Burma and its 50 million people. These are things Daw Suu is not free to say, negotiating as she is from isolation and confinement. But having saved the U.N.'s bacon, the least she is owed is some tangible support to strengthen her position -- and the chances that dialogue might succeed
by: Kanbawza Win
Reading Between the Developing Events
Such brutality and cruelty has also shocked the world including the United Nations, thus the UN Secretary General sent Mr Ibrahim Gambari twice to deliver messages that the UN Security Council strongly deplores the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators in Burma. The Council also emphasized the need to immediately release all political prisoners, and the need for the Government of Myanmar to create the necessary conditions for a genuine dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all concerned parties and ethnic groups, in order to achieve an inclusive national reconciliation with the direct support of the United Nations.
The Burmese military leader, General Than Shwe announced his willingness to meet Daw Suu Kyi if she was prepared to "end confrontation' ' and her support for sanctions and the "utter devastation' ' of the country.
The new sanctions imposed by the United States, Europe and Australia are definitely going to hurt the generals and their supporters. Than Shwe did not hesitate to let Mr. Gambari know how he felt and was quick to put the blame of the devastation of the country on the sanctions imposed on them. As usual the generals are ready to blame other people and everything else except themselves and their own foolish actions. When speaking in Naypyidaw he also informed the Special Envoy that “his previous visit did not bear fruit as the military had expected." The peoples of Burma as well as most international communities know that it is the junta under Than Shwe that has devastated the country. Have they not realised that more than 300,000 Shan, the same number of Karen and 20,000 Karenni have been robbed of their citizenship and driven out of their homes and country of birth? Unknown number of monks, students and oppositions are also homeless and fleeing from their cruel actions and brutality? It is about time the generals accept and undo their mistakes. It is about time too they search into their soul and discover where they have gone wrong to have put Burma and all its peoples in such a pitiful situation. How can they say that the economic and political situation in Burma is viable? It is such an utterly rubbish! When criticised by the United Nations representative about the state of the country they indignantly responded by expelling him.
It seems Than Shwe would agree to have an open discussion with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi only when the latter bows down to him and accept his totalitarian and dictatorial ideology, an ideology so different from hers. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi like her father, Bogyoke Aung San strives to make Burma into a genuine Federal Democratic Union. She believes in the aspiration and spirit of the “Panglong Agreement” that brought all the Nationalities together to ask for joint independence. This is the very confrontation the general is most afraid of, and it is the reason why Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been imprisoned for so long.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has agreed to have a talk with the ruling junta for a reconciliation process but Brig-Gen Kyaw Hsan was particularly dismissive of the UN envoy’s suggestion that there should be three-way talks between the government and Daw Suu , with Mr Gambari acting as mediator. “Myanmar will never allow any outside interference to infringe on the sovereignty of the state, I would like you to know that Myanmar is a small nation and if a big power bullies her … we will have no other way but to face this and endure,” he was quoted as saying on state-run TV. Clearly the top generals are not interested in Mr Gambari or the UN playing a leading role in any future national reconciliation process, which is doubtful that there will ever be any such process unless ASEAN and China put greater pressure on them.
Daw Aung San’s decision to cooperate with the ruling junta for a reconciliation process has been highlighted in her statement made on her behalf by the visiting UN special envoy. Daw Suu’s statement, particularly the phrase, “in this time of vital need for democratic solidarity and national unity, it is my duty to give constant and serious considerations to the interests and opinions of as broad a range of political organizations and forces as possible, in particular those of our ethnic nationality races”, seems to have angered the generals tremendously.
Consequently, the generals have set out to create conflicts between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the ethnic nationalities. According to the report in the “ Mizzima”, in November 16, 2007 - The Burmese military junta's Cultural Minister, Khin Aung Myint in Lashio, Northern Shan State, forced four ethnic armed ceasefire groups to sign and release a statement against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi'. The pre-written statement condemns Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s stance, and says that she has no right to represent the ethnic nationalities. The statement also says the groups support the Burmese junta's seven-point roadmap to democracy. The same procedure was also carried out in Myitkyina and other ethnic areas. News has just come in that the KIO official’s home have been raided by combat troops of the Burma Army and Sa-Ya-Pha, (Military Affairs Security Unit) for refusing to sign pre-written statement opposing Aung San Suu Kyi's statement.
Previous to this the SPDC also ordered villagers to gather in Lashio to demonstrate posing as a pro- military regime group to condemn the monks for taking part in politics and also to burn a picture of President Bush. In rural areas away from the watchful eyes of foreigners the SPDC have the habit of bullying civilians and ceasefire groups to do their dirty jobs for them, showing their cowardice nature. They have perfected how to lie convincingly and manipulate Asean leaders and some international governments.
All these evidences show that the top generals are not in the least interested in the international community’s efforts to encourage democratic change, and are intent on introducing a political system that will consolidate the military’s power into the future. ’Than Shwe and his supporters have no intention of taking part in the tripartite reconciliation process.
‘It is about time China and Asean leaders open their eyes and recognise how bad the real situation in Burma is, and what Than Shwe and his followers really stand for. Aseans are about to sign a historic “Human Rights Charter”, and how proud the citizens of each member states could be, but they can be proud only if it is credible and not tainted by the actions of one their members whose human rights situation is so poor that it is condemned by the majority citizens of the world. “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem”, (President Abraham Lincoln)
Some pro-democracy activists are campaigning for international communities to boycott the 2008 Olympic in China for supporting and appeasing the military regime of Burma. To boycott the Olympic would not be fair to the people of China nor will it be fair to the athletes who have been training for several years. After all it is an event, which will bring people of all nations of the world together to enjoy and compete sportingly, and to celebrate the highest human physical achievement.
But the competitors and visitors that will be at the Olympic in China will feel uneasy in their hearts if the Chinese Government ignores the suffering of millions of people in Burma and continues to support and appease the most evil dictatorial regime in the world. By altering its policy on Burma and helping it to become a genuine democratic country China has a lot to gain, gratitude from the peoples of Burma and greater respect from all citizens of the world, especially the citizens of China. China and her people together can then welcome visitors, competitors and look forward to the 2008 Olympics with pride.
by : S. N. Oo
Newsman becomes new Shan charter man
The editor in chief of the Shan Herald Agency for News (SHAN) Khuensai Jaiyen “reluctantly” became chairman of the Shan State Constitution Drafting Commission (SSCDC) after the conference’s first choice Khun Okker declined the nomination.
The PaO legal expert told the 45 participants, special guests and observers he was a bad choice. “I was born and grew up outside Shan State in Thaton,” he explained. “This should be a job for a native.”
Khun Okker is also deeply involved in drafting the Opposition’s answer to the ruling junta’s draft charter. Others who were elected to lead the Shan State constitution drafting are Shirley Hseng (Kachin), Na Ve Bon (Lahu), Nang Hseng Noung (Women), Nang Hseng Zawm (Shan), Khun Okker (PaO and constitutional consultant), Ta Ai Nyunt (Wa), Na Hti (Lisu), Jaha (Lahu), Min Khant (Kayan) and Asa Mayi (Akha).
Nine constitutional guidelines were also laid down by the three day consultation conference, 9-11 November, for the drafters to follow in a major expansion from the original two guidelines set out in 2000:
*A federal structure (2000)
*A democratic decentralized administrative system (2000)
*Sovereign power derives from the people of Shan State
*To be a member state of a genuine federal union with other states
*To guarantee equality among the Shan State’s ethnic nationalities
*To guarantee ethnic minority rights
*To guarantee basic human rights and gender equality
*To practise a multi-party democratic system
*To be a secular state Khuensai denies he has become a politician.
“I’m only fulfilling my duty as a citizen of Shan State,” he said. “I don’t think I’m made for the rough and tumble of politics.”
Shan State is one of Burma’s non-Burman states that have been drafting state constitutions since 2000. Under the leadership of the late Sao Seng Suk (1935-2007), it has already drawn up its first draft. The second draft is to be completed by the end of 2008.
The Promises of Panglong
A free homeland for the TaiThis, we agreed on at Panglong
The vows and promises we so solemnly made
And now, though it has never been told
By whom the promises were broken
We know who betrayed whom
But the Tai have always been true
Where are the vows and promises of Panglong
Have they all gone, I wonder, with Aung San?
The above song brings home to us the sadness that many Shan peoples feel with regard to the signing of the Panglong Agreement.
History has never been my strong subject, so I am afraid I do not have much knowledge of the Panglong Agreement and Union Day. What little I know of, is just my personal and simplified perspective, so do forgive me if I've got it wrong.
Some people have said to me there has never been a “Union of Burma”, and others say that there has always been conflict among the Burmese and the other ethnic peoples, and that is the reason why the Military regimes have thrived in their “divide and rule” tactics. All the same, I feel that the description of “union” is an individual and subjective matter, as much as the word “reality”, which really depends on one's own perception.
However, there was “unity” to a certain extent among some peoples of Burma, but sadly, it was not strong enough nor deep enough in the peoples' hearts to overcome the problems of Burma.
There were certainly discussions and comradeship between Aung San, Sao Shwe Thaike and the other ethnic delegates in their desire for a peaceful and united relationship between their peoples, but there were also power grasping people who were jealous and malevolent towards the wonderful spirit and great intentions of these esteemed and benevolent leaders.
There have also been a few different personal opinions on the Panglong Agreement, but life is such that one can either look at situations in a negative or a positive light, and history is made not just by one person or a group of people, but by the collective memory and views of all people.
Regarding Bogyoke Aung San, I would think that he was a considerate, admirable, charismatic and persuasive leader who cared for the peoples of Burma's welfare. History tells us that he worked hard for independence from colonial rule and for unity among different ethnic groups.
Anyway, on the part of Sao Shwe Thaike and other ethnic leaders, including the Kachin and the Chin, I understood that the main things they hoped and wished for were full autonomy in local affairs for ethnic peoples and the right of secession for the Shan peoples after 10 years if things didn't work out.
The bottom line was that the ethnic leaders who signed the Agreement did so without being forced to; it was because they trusted Aung San. They believed that he was a man of his word and got things done.
Regarding the Agreement
I understand that a complete account of what actually took place at Panglong has yet to be written.
According to what I have read, there were just nine points to it; the first four, regarding the selection of representatives to the national executive council, the fifth point guaranteed full internal autonomy for Shan State; the sixth, a promise to hold talks on a separate Kachin state; the seventh, a guarantee of fundamental democratic rights; the eighth, financial autonomy; the ninth, financial assistance to Kachin and Chin from the national treasury.
The tragedy was that the tenth point was never mentioned when the Shan, Chin and Kachin leaders signed the Agreement; which was, “the right to secede after attainment of freedom from Confederation with Burma, if and when we choose”.
I for one feel that the leaders should not have signed the Agreement without the tenth point. Understandably, we Shans could not help wondering whether the Burmese delegates had any intention of promising them the right to secede at all, hence hoodwinking the ethnic politicians by saying the matter was too complicated and to be discussed later at the constituent assembly. I read somewhere that the Burmese politicians had no intention of honouring Aung San's promises at Panglong at all.
Although the agreement was not “adequate”, a most important point is that in their hearts, the ethnic leaders' motivation was totally sincere, including Aung San's, who wanted only the best for their peoples, and perhaps rushing into an agreement because they did not want to waste any more time was one of the perils.
On February 12, 1947, the Panglong Agreement was signed, which led to the establishment of the Union of Burma, and hence this day has been celebrated every year ever since by the peoples of Burma as “Union Day”.
However, unfortunately, as it turned out, things did not materialize as the agreement promised, because on the morning of July 19 th Bogyoke Aung San and the whole interim cabinet including Sao Sam Htun of Mong Pawn, one of the three Shan statesmen, were assassinated at the constituent assembly.
Although the Panglong conference happened 60 years ago, the Shans still hold on to the Agreement as a very important part of our history, because it was the dream, the vision and the courage of our leaders who got together and did what was necessary for the future and welfare of their peoples. The Panglong Agreement also was a good beginning for the building of a new relationship based on equality and mutual respect between the ethnic peoples and the Burmese.
The Shan Democratic Union (SDU) had on Union Day 2004, pledged to restore “the Union as aspired to and as intended by our founding fathers”.
The full text of the Shan Democratic Union statement:
Today February 12th, in a small town, Panglong, in the Shan State , an accord that gave birth to the Union of Burma (Pyidaungzu) was signed by the founding fathers of the Union , 57 years ago.
Thus the Panglong Accord of 1947 established a Union of National States, which was co-independent and equal.
However, the Union, which was founded on democratic principles and on national self-determination as inspired to by the founding fathers and the whole people of the Union, did not materialize.
The SDU has taken up the task of restoring the Union as aspired to and as intended by our founding fathers.
We call on the people and nations of all states, leaders, political parties, fronts, armies, activist networks, societal associations, women and youth, to join together to restore the true Union , and to also rebuild our country, our state, and our respective communities and ethnic cultures, languages, traditions, and restore pride in our diverse ways and our unique identities. The Shan State has now been united, with all leaders, parties, armies, and societal and activist networks connected by a cohesive framework of action based on the principle of Common Goal, Diverse Actions. This unity will give us the strength to meet all challenges and to create and utilize opportunities to fulfil the aspirations of all of us and to honour the founding fathers of our Union .
The task ahead is not easy, and especially it is difficult to attain a peaceful and orderly political change and to restore the good life to all our people. Although the task and the path ahead will not be easy, retreat is not our option. Neither is standing still. We – the SDU – believe that our compatriots of all nationalities will meet the challenges and overcome all obstacles.
Onward to the Second Panglong.
We look forward eagerly to the day when there will be another, much better, Panglong Agreement, with all the complete and necessary steps to implement and benefit all the ethnic peoples of Burma.
Let us make it possible to build a nation that reinforces and carries out the Union of our collective spirit.
Let us remember and celebrate Union Day with love, joy, optimism and comradeship, and capture the spirit of Panglong once again.
by : Taisamyone
UNITY OF PURPOSE TOWARDS TRUE DEMOCRACY
The people of Burma need to follow their example. We all want freedom from the oppressive military regime, but are we ready to work together for the same goal?
Although the people of Burma are all suffering under this ruthless government, are we united enough to work together?
As I see it, the Burmese people, the non-Burmese, and ethnic people still need to work at having complete trust in each other, to be able to work together towards achieving true democracy together.
The ethnic people and the non-Burmese of Burma have been through terrible persecutions and oppression, and to the same extent, the Burmese people too. However, I feel that we need to be more understanding and caring toward each other, whichever group we belong to, and a need to develop some understanding, sensitivity and awareness of each other, in order to be more tolerant of our differences, our religions and traditions.
Many non-Burmese and ethnic people are very wary and suspicious of Burmese people because of how they had in the past been discriminated against, bullied, manipulated and hoodwinked into losing their rights and self-respect by ill-meaning Burmese leaders. Since the dictatorship of Ne Win their situation has worsened over the years, and now they have lost even their basic human rights, autonomy, livelihood, education, basic welfare amenities, been brutally and inhumanely treated and discriminated against.
If we realize that we are all “victims of the system”, we should aim toward a unity of purpose, and throw out negative beliefs such as discrimination, racism, chauvinism or hatred towards different groups of people.
In the past, the peoples of Burma have been able to work together and achieve great things (Panglong, 1988, etc.) even if there hasn't been the positive result we all wanted. We need to regenerate this unity amongst ourselves to work for our common goal – the overthrow of the SPDC regime and the restoration of our freedoms and democracy.
Democracy means a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them; the common people, or, a state of society characterized by recognition of equality of rights and privileges for ALL people, politically, socially or legally. If this is the kind of fair and just society we want for ourselves and our children, there is no way we are going to get it with the present military regime, or without unity.
This is the time to lay down our differences, develop full trust and caring toward one another, and go forward in full force toward true democracy in everyway and any method we can.
by : Feraya
Your are NOT Forgotten
You are NOT Forgotten
(An Interview with Ben Rogers by Feraya Nangmone and Taisamyone)
BURMA DIGEST: How did you first become involved with Christian Solidarity Worldwide?
Ben Rogers: I first became involved with the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide in 1994, when I heard Baroness Caroline Cox, who is Patron of CSW, speaking in my university college chapel. She spoke about human rights violations in Sudan, Nagorno Karabakh, Burma and other places that she has travelled to, and I felt profoundly moved to respond. I spoke to her afterwards, asked to get involved, and then I launched an appeal on my university campus to raise funds and awareness. I travelled to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh with Baroness Cox and US Congressman Frank Wolf a few months later, on a cargo plane loaded with humanitarian aid, and that was how it all began! In Nagorno Karabakh, a tiny war-torn enclave that had been bombarded and besieged by Azerbaijan, I met wonderful people who were bravely risking their lives struggling for freedom against all the odds. That was when my commitment to the fight for freedom first began.
BURMA DIGEST: What made you set up CSW in Hong Kong?
Ben Rogers: When I graduated I was offered a job as a journalist in Hong Kong. However, I was becoming more involved with CSW in my spare-time, and I wanted that to continue. I had a dilemma - if I moved to Hong Kong, would I have to give up my involvement with CSW. My dilemma was resolved when the National Director of CSW said: "The job you have been offered in Hong Kong sounds great. We think you should take it. And by the way, will you set up CSW Hong Kong while you are there". So that's what I did!
BURMA DIGEST: How did you first become interested in Burma?
Ben Rogers: I first really became interested in Burma through working in East Timor. I travelled to East Timor after the violence surrounding the referendum in 1999, with my friend Dr. Martin Panter, founder of CSW Australia, who has been visiting the Thai-Burmese border at least twice a year for the past 18 years. While in East Timor, which I have visited many times, Martin started to tell me more about the situation in Burma. I asked if I could travel with him to the Thai border, and so in March 2000 I made my first visit to the Karen and Karenni. I remember swimming across the Moie River to visit the Burma side, Karen State, briefly!!
BURMA DIGEST: We understand that you travelled to different parts of Burma. Please tell us a bit about your experience in different parts of different ethnic states.
Ben Rogers: I have visited the Thai-Burmese border and Internally Displaced People across the border inside Karen and Shan States, about 12 times, and the India-Burma border twice. I have visited Karen, Karenni, Shan, Chin, Kachin and Burman people. My passion is to work for all the people of Burma, not just one or two groups, and to fight for freedom and human rights for everyone in that country. I have met wonderful people of different ethnicities and religions, whose courage, faith, dignity, gentleness, graciousness and generosity is inspiring and humbling. I remember one Shan boy, aged 15, who told me how his mother and father were shot dead by the Burma Army, his village was burned, and he was taken as a forced porter and severely beaten. As he looked into my eyes, he said words which have stayed with me ever since: "Please tell the world to put pressure on the regime to stop killing its people. Tell the world not to forget us." I also remember a Chin person in Mizoram telling me: "We feel so forgotten. We used to pray that someone would come to us, and we used to weep when no one came. Your visit here is a Godsend." Such inspiring and humbling remarks make me determined to continue working for Burma's freedom until it comes.
BURMA DIGEST: Did you see evidence of abuses of human rights whilst you were there?
Ben Rogers: Yes. I visited one IDP village in 2002 just a few weeks after it had been attacked. It had been burned down. All that was left were the ashes. I remember sitting on a piece of wood that had once been part of a church, and talking to the pastor. "We have to leave village after village, house after house,” he said. "Please do not forget us. Please remember us in your prayers." I have interviewed refugees and IDPs with first-hand experiences of torture, rape and forced labour; I have met landmine victims, some of whom had been used as human minesweepers; and I have met former political prisoners and former child soldiers.
BURMA DIGEST: What do you think can be done to stop atrocities against human rights in Burma?
Ben Rogers: It needs a major concerted effort on the part of both the international community and the Burmese people. We need the UN Security Council to address the crisis and pass a resolution. We need China, India and Thailand to stop supporting the regime and to work for change. We need the EU to take a stronger, more proactive approach. We need countries like the UK to provide financial support to democracy building projects and groups on the border involved in human rights documentation, dissemination and education. We need ASEAN to increase its pressure. We also need greater unity among the people of Burma. In East Timor, although there were many different political and even regional/ethnic differences within the country, the people united and formed a common front against the Indonesian occupation, under the National Council for Timorese Resistance, known as "CNRT". They had three very clearly identifiable charismatic and well-respected leaders: Xanana Gusmao, the figure-head, in prison, who commanded the loyalty and respect of everyone, in the same way that Aung San Suu Kyi does in Burma; Bishop Belo, the head of the Church, the spiritual and pastoral leader; and Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta, in exile, who was able to communicate very effectively in the UN and other international forums and media and who travelled the world lobbying. In Burma, it is fragmented. Apart from Aung San Suu Kyi, whom the world knows and rightly admires, there is no clearly identifiable charismatic respected leader around whom everyone could unite. There are many many very very good people doing excellent work, but Burma needs one or two more people whom the world can identify. It would also be good if the people of Burma could unite under one single umbrella, as the East Timorese did with CNRT. At the moment, there are several umbrella groups - NCUB, NCGUB, ENC, NDF, DAB, NLD (LA) .... I find it confusing, and I work on Burma almost full-time and have done for six years. Imagine how confusing politicians and journalists find it. If we could build one umbrella group that everyone - NLD, KNU, RCSS, CNF, KNPP and all the other ethnic groups - joined, then that would single a great unity which would really help the cause.
BURMA DIGEST: Is there any possibility of taking the SPDC to the International Court of Justice? If so, which members?
Ben Rogers: Yes, I think it is possible. There is a very strong case against the SPDC for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide or attempted genocide. Several countries are considering the matter, and we are lobbying them to take it further. It would be wrong at this stage to speculate publicly as to which countries might do this, though. We need to continue lobbying and building up the case.
BURMA DIGEST: What are your views on Karen National Union?
Ben Rogers: The KNU has been courageously fighting to defend the Karen people and promote freedom in Burma, and I have great respect for them and their leaders. They have shown great restraint and dedication and moderation, in the face of extremely difficult challenges, politically and militarily. They have always made clear that they want a peaceful, non-violent, political solution to Burma's problems. Their armed resistance has bravely provided a front-line of defence for Karen civilians facing the attacks of the Burma Army. They have carefully avoided any tactics which could be deemed to be "terrorist", such as attacks on civilian targets, and have been primarily a defensive rather than an offensive force. The KNU is a key player in the future of Burma.
BURMA DIGEST: What are your views on US patriotic act and UK anti terrorist laws with regard to refugees from Burma?
Ben Rogers: I am aware that the Patriot Act has made it difficult for refugees who have any connections to the KNU or other armed groups in Burma. I think the Patriot Act needs to be reviewed. Of course the US and the UK need to be vigilant in protecting themselves against terrorist infiltration and I would be the first to support that. But the people from Burma are not terrorists, indeed quite the opposite - they are people who share our values of democracy and freedom, which terrorists do not - so we should be doing all we can to help them and give them sanctuary.
BURMA DIGEST: What can the World Community do to help the IDP’s and refugees from Burma?
Ben Rogers: It is vital that the international community, in the form of Governments and NGOs, provide funding to the brave relief groups who cross the border into Burma to take medical and food aid to the IDPs. So far, with a few exceptions, the world's governments and the major relief agencies have failed the IDPs badly. That must change, and it is something I am campaigning hard on.
BURMA DIGEST: The Conservative Human Rights Commission is breaking new grounds with the new compassionate policies of the new leadership of the Conservative Party. This is a significant change from the traditional view of the Conservative Party. What role do they have with the pro-democracy and human rights organisations for Burma?
Ben Rogers: The Conservative Party Human Rights Commission actually builds on traditional Conservative values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, the dignity of the individual and opportunity, articulated throughout history by people like William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade, Winston Churchill, who defeated fascism, and Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who helped defeat communism and promote freedom. However, it is very true that those values have not previously been applied consistently in Conservative foreign policy. In the past, we have built alliances with dictators who we should not have supported. The new Conservative Party Human Rights Commission will, I believe, have a very important role in helping to influence our foreign policy, place the promotion of human rights and democracy at its heart, and develop policies for more consistently championing human rights around the world. You can see our website www.conservativehumanrights.com for more information. On Burma, we have held a hearing in Parliament, the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has been very supportive on a number of initiatives, including co-sponsoring an Early Day Motion and signing a letter to the UN Security Council, and he made a speech at an event with Charm Tong from the Shan Women's Action Network, which you can see on our website. The Conservative Party Human Rights Commission will continue to put pressure on the British Government and the international community to bring change to Burma, we will continue to develop alliances with the Burmese pro-democracy and human rights groups, and we will not stay silent. The most significant role we can play, at the moment as the Conservative Party is in Opposition, is to keep up the pressure on our own Government to do more.
BURMA DIGEST: Do you think the current changes in the Conservative Party will help them win the next election, and if they do, what will they do for Burma?
Ben Rogers: I believe David Cameron is making some extremely important and much-needed changes, to make the Conservative Party a truly modern, compassionate party which is genuinely committed to social justice. I was one of his earliest supporters for the leadership. I do believe we are now in a position - the best position we have been in in almost a decade - to win the next General Election. If that happens, I am confident that William Hague and David Cameron will be true to their word, and will really place human rights and democracy at the heart of foreign policy. As to what they will do for Burma, it depends on what the situation in Burma is at the time - but I do believe that they will strongly support the democracy movement and do all they can to restore democracy and human rights to the country.
BURMA DIGEST: How do you view the overall current situation In Burma?
Ben Rogers: The overall current situation is terrible. The offensive in Karen State is the worst in a decade. Thousands of innocent civilians have been displaced. The regime appears to be cracking down on the NLD. Although Than Shwe met UN Under Secretary-General Gambari recently, and Gambari was permitted to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, there is no visible sign yet that this was anything more than a trick to lull the international community into a false sense of security. I hope things will change and that the regime will recognise the need to enter into a meaningful tripartite dialogue, but at the moment the political, humanitarian and economic situation is desperate.
BURMA DIGEST: What is your vision for the future and for world peace?
Ben Rogers: I passionately believe that democracy is the key to peace. Truly democratic countries throughout history have never attacked another democratic country. Dictators and tyrants are the cause of war, poverty, instability and suffering. So my vision is for a world in which everyone may live in freedom - with the freedom to express their opinions without fear of imprisonment or torture, the freedom to choose their religion, the freedom to assemble, and the right to hold their government to account. Human rights are basic, simple, and universal. Every human being throughout the world has a right to be treated with dignity.
BURMA DIGEST: What is your last word for our readers and our ethnic brothers and sisters of Burma?
Ben Rogers: All I would say is that I make this promise: that the cause of freedom for Burma is one that I am committed to for as long as it takes. I have dedicated my life to it, and will go on doing so. I will not rest until all of Burma is free, all the ethnic peoples of Burma are treated with equal respect and equal rights, and the country can live in peace and without fear. I love Burma, I love the people of Burma, many of them have become my real and personal friends, and I will do everything I can to contribute to the struggle. To the Burmans, Karen, Karenni, Shan, Mon, Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Rohingya, Pa-O, Padaung and every other ethnic group: you are not forgotten.
Web links
A Land Without Evil: Stopping the Genocide of Burma's Karen People, a Book by Ben Rogers. http://www.benrogers.org.uk/ http://www.csw.org.uk/ http://ccfwebsite.com/world_display.php?ID=36&type=interview http://www.conservativehumanrights.com/newground/ http://www.partnersworld.org/rogers.html http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/ben_rogers/index.html
English to Chinese BETA
English to French
English to German
English to Italian
English to Japanese BETA
English to Korean BETA
English to Russian BETA 
English to Spanish
