Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Where There’s Struggle, There’s Hope

By Kyaw Zwa Moe November 1, 2007

The September 2007 uprising was a struggle between the sons of Buddha and the forces of darkness and repression. In the struggle for democracy, hope is the key. The battle lines are drawn more clearly now than ever before.

Nothing can defeat Burma’s military regime—at least to date. All attempts at peaceful or violent means including armed struggle, people’s uprisings, international sanctions and political engagement have failed.


Most recently, even the Buddha’s Dhamma was quashed by the guns of the ruling Buddhist generals. The streets of Rangoon were stained with the blood of monks who religiously and peacefully chanted the “Metta Sutta,” the Buddha’s words of loving kindness:
Let everyone be free from harm

Let everyone be free from anger

Let everyone be free from hardship


During the past four decades, thousands of innocent lives have been sacrificed in the hope of creating a democratic nation based on the rule of law. The road ahead sometimes looks like a repeat of the past, filled with the same sort of wishful thinking, meaningless proposals and condemnations that are repeated year after year—yet nothing changes.


For me, September 2007 seems like déjà vu. As a high school student-protester in 1988, I was frozen in my tracks by the sight of a gleaming bayonet at the end of a rifle held by a soldier with hate in his eyes, ordering me to back off. Luckily, I wasn’t one of the thousands of protesters who were shot, stabbed or beaten on the street.


In September, it was clear the generals were as determined as ever to beat down anyone who protested, including monks. This time, the demonstrators, with anger and tears, stepped back before thousands were again killed.


This time, it was a battle against the Buddha’s words, chanted by the Sangha—the sons of the Buddha. Leading monks repeated over and over: “It is a fight between Dhamma (justice) and Ah-dhamma (injustice).”


This time, with lightning, well-calculated moves, the pro-democracy movement was quickly beheaded as most of the seasoned opposition leaders, including prominent activist Min Ko Naing and his fellow leaders, were quickly rounded up by security forces.


The Burmese generals who are seen as “stupid,” “uneducated” and “unqualified” by many of their critics have again outwitted the people of Burma and the international community.

Unlike in 1988, there were no serious discussions to continue the uprising through some other means, such as armed struggle. Various ethnic rebel groups have waged the region’s longest armed struggle since the late 1940s, able in some cases to achieve a standoff, but with no hope of further gains.


The September 2007 uprising is a struggle that hasn’t ended. It will continue—just ask the political prisoners who are in the junta’s notorious prisons throughout the country.


I was imprisoned from 1991 to 1999, spending time in two prisons. Once you commit yourself to opposing the junta, the struggle never ends. In prison, we sat in our cells, anxiously hoping for strong UN resolutions. We hoped for strong support from regional neighbors. Unfortunately, our hopes were in vain. The UN and the neighboring countries offered no meaningful change.


Some things are different this time. I do not believe my former fellow prisoners, including some leaders of the 88 Generation Students group who are now in prison, hope for any quick fixes.
There it is: no hope for quick fixes. But as long as the people continue to struggle, there is hope.
My only true certainty is in the unwavering spirit of those committed leaders who will continue to struggle for democracy in spite of the harsh carckdown. I know that if they never stop struggling for positive change, hope will live.


For instance, a coup within the military is always a possibility. As more information floods the world, including inside Burma, there must be officers who have more enlightened liberal views, who understand that Burma has more to gain by joining the world community. The fact that such officers have not yet acted doesn’t mean there’s no hope.


Also, how about the leaders of China and India, two of the generals’ allies that have viewed the crackdown as an “internal affair?” That type of head-in-the-sand attitude is dangerously anachronistic in today’s world and is doomed to backfire. China has clout, and there is hope that it may use its power to influence the generals to move toward some form of power-sharing, even while holding on to power. That would be a step in the right direction.


So, there’s still hope for the democracy movement.


Recently, I spoke with leading activists who are deeply engaged in the democracy struggle.
“We confront their bullets,” said one of them. “We put our heads under their clubs. We sacrifice and do as much as we can. Soon we will be thrown in prison again. We don’t know when we will come out from that hell. Who outside can carry out this task?”


That is the question the pro-democracy movement inside and outside the country and the international community must now answer.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

A Meaningful Dialogue Needs Courage [Commentary]

By Htet Aung October 29, 2007
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=9140

Burma's current situation presents an unambiguous demand for structural political change to save its people from the economic whirlpool.

This fact is not based on political theories nor on predictions, but on the socio-economic decline leading to the Buddhist monks-led September uprising.

Snr-Gen Than Shwe and his generals appear to recognize this and have begun very slow but inevitable steps to engage the country's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, in the midst of mounting international pressure.

As a military general, Than Shwe needs courage to accept the reality of the country's general failure under his rule. He has to draw on courage to recognize Suu Kyi and her role in the future politics of the country, and to work together with the democratic forces, including the National League for Democracy and ethnic political parties.

A good example is provided by the process of reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. The leaders of two diametrically opposed hostile camps, Nelson Mandela and F W de Klerk were honored by the international community and shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993.

Despite the racist policies and human rights abuses of his government, de Klerk regained a position of dignity within South Africa and in international politics. He achieved rehabilitation through his deeds—an example the Burmese generals should take by holding a meaningful dialogue with Suu Kyi.

The good will and courage shown by de Klerk helped lead his country from turmoil to peace. Than Shwe needs such will and courage.

The formation of the first multiracial government of the post-apartheid era in South Africa showed the importance of true reconciliation and peaceful coexistence between the black and white people of that country.

De Klerk accepted the post of vice president, while Mandela led the new government as president—a previously unimaginable pairing. Their two political parties shared ministerial positions fairly.

Than Shwe and his generals need to seek a way to work together with opposition political parties in this way.

After many years of confrontation and enmity, the two divided populations of South Africa came together to rebuild their country. Why can't Burmese military leaders walk such a noble path?

The economic and other sanctions imposed by the United States, EU and, most recently, Australia are sure to be lifted when Than Shwe shows the world tangible political progress, of which the first step will be the release of all political prisoners.


"At the present time, the enemy of the generals is their fear itself,
and they need to overcome it if they want to survive the battle "


This first step is what Suu Kyi as well as the international community want to see as an indicator of a genuine meaningful dialogue. The generals can catch two birds with one stone. They are in a win-win situation, as the state-run media made clear recently.

Their one-sided command of the game is now effectively over. Twenty years is more than enough time for a government to prove tangible results of progress in the country’s economic and social sectors. In a normal democracy, this period of time would cover three successive administrations.

The only possible progress the regime can show for its 20 years in power is confined to just two sectors—transportation and irrigation. Roads, bridges and dams have been built, but at a big cost to the population in terms of human rights violations, forced labor and the displacement of entire communities.

It’s certainly time for the Burmese regime to admit the failure of its economic and social policies. The generals can't hide their "failed governance" any longer. But it can be amended if they, like de Klerk, have the courage to face reality.

Suu Kyi once said: "The only real prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear." South Africa's Mandela expressed a similar sentiment when he wrote: "The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."

Soldiers are never afraid to kill their enemy, but they fear to lose the battle. At the present time, the enemy of the generals is their fear itself, and they need to overcome it if they want to survive the battle.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Australia Sanction Against Burmese Regime Figures and Supporters

BANKING (FOREIGN EXCHANGE) REGULATIONS 1959
SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA

The Reserve Bank of Australia has been directed by the Australian Government to take steps under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959 to implement financial sanctions against Burmese regime figures and supporters.
Details of these individuals are contained in the Annex.
Any transactions involving the transfer of funds or payments to, by the order of, or on behalf of any person listed in the Annex are prohibited without prior approval from the Reserve Bank.
Enquiries:
Manager, Media OfficeInformation Department
Reserve Bank of Australia
SYDNEY
Phone: +61 2 9551 9720Fax: +61 2 9221 5528E-mail: rbainfo@rba.gov.au

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

No Soft Touch

By Kyaw Zwa Moe October 5, 2007


The women of Burma have always been a force to reckon with.
As the mother of a four-month-old baby, Nilar Thein should be at home now, caring for her little daughter. Instead, she’s a fugitive with a price on her head, in hiding from Burmese government forces desperate to silence her and other outspoken activists.

Left to Right: HIV/AIDS activist Phyu Phyu Thin, Leading activist Nilar Thein, A woman activist during a protest, Naw Ohn Hla joins as protest, Mie Mie leads a Rangoon protest

For Nilar Thein, 35, it was a clear choice—whether to remain silent in the interests of her family or to join in the movement to bring democracy to Burma, knowing she risked jail and separation from her baby.

She took the second course of action, believing that in the long run it would benefit her daughter far more than if she had done nothing. By working for democratic change in Burma, she hoped to “bring about a bright future for my daughter,” Nilar Thein told The Irrawaddy from her hiding place.

“Only if we end this bad system will the future of Burma’s people, including my daughter’s, be bright,” she said. “I love my daughter. I had to leave her, but I believe she will later understand why.”
Nilar Thein fled into hiding when authorities rounded up leaders of the recent demonstrations against the government’s latest round of severe price increases. Her husband Kyaw Min Yu (aka Jimmy), was arrested and imprisoned, along with more than 100 other activists.

The young mother wasn’t the only woman to risk the wrath of the authorities and to place her family and her livelihood in jeopardy. Dozens of women from the 88 Generation Students group and the opposition National League for Democracy braved the taunts and brutality of thugs who broke up their peaceful demonstrations.

Among them was Mie Mie, mother of two children and a member of the 88 Generation Students group, as well as HIV/AIDS activist Phyu Phyu Thin, labor rights leader Su Su Nway and Naw Ohn Hla of the NLD.
Women have always been in the forefront of efforts in Burma to combat oppression and promote democracy, but their involvement has grown deeper and stronger since the late 1990s. They have shown themselves ever more ready to confront the authorities and defy successive crackdowns.

Their place in the pro-democracy struggle took on new importance when thousands of Burma’s menfolk were imprisoned or forced to flee the country at the time of the 1988 uprising. With compassion and total dedication they stood by their families while reinforcing the leadership of the weakened opposition movement—a truly heroic undertaking.

“An idea or action tends to come out of a feeling or suffering,” said respected Burmese author Kyi Oo. “They [Burmese women] have faced hardships and lengthy imprisonment. Their unusual dedication and sacrifice came out of such hardships.”

The 83-year-old veteran author of several books on Burma’s women expressed admiration for the efforts of Nilar Thein and her fellow activists, Phyu Phyu Thin, Mie Mie, Su Su Nway and Naw Ohn Hla.

Nilar Thein’s struggle for a just society is rooted in her experience of the 1988 uprising, when she witnessed how government soldiers killed, beat and arrested demonstrators outside her Rangoon home.
“I still hear those voices in my ears and see those scenes in my mind,” she said. “I desperately want to get rid of this evil system.”

During a 1996 demonstration, Nilar Thein was prompted to slap Rangoon’s police chief, who repeatedly ordered his troops to beat her. The police officers at first ignored the order, but when she slapped the police chief she was thrown into a vehicle and driven away to jail. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment for slapping the police chief and to a further seven for her political activities.

Nilar Thein spent eight years and nine months in two notorious prisons, Insein and Tharawaddy. She emerged from jail with her spirit unbroken and her determination to work for democracy as strong as ever.
“The benevolence of those young women towards the country is invaluable,” said Kyi Oo.

Nilar Thein also appears to be invaluable to the authorities, who have offered a reward of several hundred thousand kyat for her capture. Photographs of her and other wanted activists have been widely distributed by the security forces, whose lack of success in tracking most of them down speaks volumes for the amount of popular support the fugitives enjoy.

The wanted activists were even able to continue their campaign by telephone from their hiding places until the authorities blocked their numbers and those of their activist contacts.
In one phone conversation, HIV/AIDS activist Phyu Phyu Thin, 35, explained why young women with families to care for were so actively engaged in the struggle. Their feminine nature, their “sympathy and emotion,” drove woman to “sacrifice,” she said.

Phyu Phyu Thin was first arrested in September 2000, along with 30 women members of the NLD, when they gathered at Rangoon railway station to say farewell to party leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who was heading to upper Burma. The group spent the next four months and four days in an annex of Rangoon’s Insein Prison.

Like Nilar Thein before her, Phyu Phyu Thin’s resolve to fight official misrule and injustice remained unshaken after her time in prison. She determined to devote her entire life to the pro-democracy movement.
The junta’s attempt to break her spirit had misfired—“That’s their mistake,” Phyu Phyu Thin laughed. Before her arrest she had worked only occasionally at the NLD headquarters. After her prison experience, she rarely missed a single day.

That prison experience transformed her feminine compassion and emotion into a stronger commitment. She recalled such injustices as the case of three sisters who played no part in politics but who had been sent to prison because their brother had participated in an anti-junta demonstration in Japan.

Phyu Phyu Thin has won many sympathizers because of her work with HIV/AIDS patients, and when she was arrested again last May they demonstrated successfully for her release.
During last month’s demonstrations she was sheltered by one patient, who told her: “You shouldn’t be arrested.” Over the past five years, Phyu Phyu Thin has cared for about 1,500 patients who were neglected by the state.

The number of women political prisoners in Burma exceeds 50, according to the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma). The association estimates that since the 1988 uprising, more than 500 women have served prison terms because of their political involvement.

The roots of women’s involvement in politics and power-wielding in Burma go very deep, reaching back several centuries.
In the Pagan era, from the 11th to the 13th century, Queen Pwa Saw’s just reign won the affection and respect of male rulers. Queen Shin Saw Pu, who ruled the Mon Kingdom from 1453 to 1472, was also famous for her effective governance.

Two queens of the Konbaung period (1752-1885)—Nanmadaw Me Nu and Sin Phyu Ma Shin—won respect for their strong will and effective involvement in government. Burma’s last queen, Supayalat, exercised great power over King Thibaw and worked closely with ministers in managing the affairs of state.

Women took to the battlefield in early military encounters with British colonialists. At the time of the First Burma War in 1824, the courage of ethnic Shan women won the admiration of a British officer, Major Snodgrass, who wrote about the 1825 battle of Wethtikan in his book “Narrative of the Burmese War”: “These warrior women wore armor and as they rode their horses bravely, spoke words of encouragement to the soldiers…one of the fair Amazons also received a fatal bullet in the breast.”

At the start of the 20th century, the anti-colonial movement was strengthened by the participation of educated women. In 1919, female intellectuals established Burma’s first national women’s organization, Konmari, and one year later student members of the group joined in the first university boycott against the British.

Opposition to British colonialism was also the agenda of other women’s organizations, such as the Myanmar Amyothamii Konmari Athin (Burmese Women Association) and the Patriotic Women’s Association.
Taking a lead from their menfolk, who adopted the honorific Thakhin, meaning master, in an act of open defiance to the British, women came to call themselves Thakhinma.

A number of women were jailed for their political activity. Thakhinma Thein Tin achieved fame for her defiance of the British and was among the first group of five women to be imprisoned.
As opposition to British rule grew, Burmese women began to claim a place in the international arena. The National Council of Women of Burma, founded in 1931, successfully pressured the British government to admit a Burmese woman delegate to a special Burma roundtable conference in London.

The council’s choice was Mya Sein, an author, teacher and mother, known as M.A. Mya Sein because of the master of arts degree she had obtained from Oxford University. Earlier in 1931, she was selected as one of the two representatives for women across Asia for the League of Nations, the world organization that preceded the United Nations.

At the London roundtable, Mya Sein called on the British government to enact a law guaranteeing equal rights for women in Burma.
In 1929, Hnin Mya was elected Burma’s first woman senator. Another distinguished female senator, Dr Saw Hsa, elected in 1937, was made a Member of the British Empire, a prestigious civil honor.

In 1953, five years after Burma gained independence, another leading woman politician, Ba Maung Chain, was chosen as a minister to represent Karen State, Burma’s first (and only) woman minister.
The role of women in Burmese politics diminished following the 1962 military coup that brought Ne Win to power. Women became little more than puppets in the male-dominated administration. The period between 1962 and 1988, when Ne Win relinquished power after a national uprising, can be seen as a feminine “dark age” in Burma.
Under the current military regime, women haven’t fared much better, and none occupies any high position in government.
The year 1988, however, did see the arrival on the political stage of a charismatic female leader—Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of independence hero Aung San. She became the focus of a nationwide movement for political change and was adopted as a role model for progressive young people in Burma.

Nilar Thein and Phyu Phyu Thin both name Suu Kyi (or “auntie,” as they affectionately call her) as their role model. Like them, Suu Kyi sacrificed family and a secure home life for the cause of justice and freedom.
Suu Kyi declined the opportunity to live abroad with her British husband, Michael Aris, and their two children, choosing house arrest in Rangoon instead. When her husband died she declined to leave the country to attend his funeral, fearing that she would not be allowed to return. She hasn’t seen her two sons for a number of years.

“The dawn rises only when the rooster crows,” Suu Kyi declared in a video-recorded speech to an NGO Forum on Women in Beijing in 1995, quoting an old Burmese proverb. “It crows to welcome the light that has come to relieve the darkness of night.”

Then she added: “It is not the prerogative of men alone to bring light to this world. Women with their capacity for compassion and self-sacrifice, their courage and perseverance, have done much to dissipate the darkness of intolerance and hate, suffering and despair.

“Many of my male colleagues who have suffered imprisonment for their part in the democracy movement have spoken of the great debt of gratitude they owe their womenfolk, particularly their wives, who stood by them firmly, tender as mothers nursing their newly born, brave as lionesses defending their young.”

Suu Kyi referred to the results of scientific research to argue that women were perhaps better able than men to solve issues without conflict. One study found that women were better than men at verbal skills, while men tended towards physical action.

“Surely these discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict, by leading the way to solutions based on dialogue rather than on viciousness or violence,” Suu Kyi suggested.

Women like Suu Kyi and those now in hiding from the authorities can certainly claim the moral high ground in the current political crisis in Burma. Their compassion for the victims of a male-dominated, repressive regime is seen as an important political weapon.

“I love my daughter, but I also need to consider mothers fleeing with their children and hiding in jungles, such as in Karen State because of the civil war,” said Nilar Thein. “My suffering is very small compared to theirs.
“Compared to their children, my daughter still has a secure life with her grandparents, even though I’m not there.”

By allowing concern for one’s own family to divert attention from the hardships of others “we will face more terrible suffering in the future,” Nilar Thein said. “And then my daughter will not be able to enjoy a good life.”

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Talking Nonsense on Burma [Commentary]


By Kyaw Zwa Moe October 21, 2007


ASEAN officials are talking nonsense.

Several ministers and diplomats of Asean countries warned recently a sudden regime change in Burma could lead to an Iraq-type anarchy with rival factions battling each other for power.
Are such people that ignorant of Burma, which belongs to the 10-member Asean grouping?

“We should not think of a so-called regime change,” said Asean Secretary-General ong Keng Yong of Singapore, which could lead to another Iraq. "Such change implies a dramatic power vacuum,” he said. Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo said the same.

First of all, Ong Keng Yong and others must know that no one has called for a regime change in the military-ruled country.

No one says there isn't a need for the military regime’s involvement in politics and in the day-to-day running of the country. The Burmese people, including the political opposition groups, all understand the military has to play a key role in a transitional period to democracy.

Even the main opposition National League for Democracy party led by detained pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, though it was the big winner of the 1990 elections, has called for an unconditional dialogue which includes the military, opposition groups and ethnic parties. Other opposition and ethnic groups inside and outside the country have said the same thing.

The monk-led demonstrations last month demanded three things: national reconciliation, the release of all political prisoners and an improvement in the living standards of the people. Monks haven’t called for a regime change, either.

Following the junta’s brutal crackdown against the peaceful demonstrations, some countries in the West have increased their sanctions on the regime, in hope that it may force the junta to start face-to-face talks. Everyone is pushing the stubborn generals to enter a dialogue process.

What about the ethnic groups? There are about two dozen ethnic insurgent groups, with probably 17 ceasefire groups. Are they a unified opposition? Far from it. Are they a hotbed for anarchy? Far from it. They have as much to fear from anarchy as everyone else.

Actually, most ethnic insurgencies are products of the military rule, though a few rebel groups such as Communist Party of Burma and the Karen National Union began their struggles soon after Burma gained independence in 1948. The 45-year military rule since 1962 fuels the ethnic insurgency movement.

In fact, those ethnic armed groups—both ceasefire and non-ceasefire—have called for a form of democracy that would provide autonomy for their respective states. The hope is that, if granted autonomy, the anger supporting the country’s decades-long insurgencies would die out.

The junta either can’t stop the insurgency movements or it has deliberately kept the flame of opposition alive to create the impression that the military is essential to “protect” the country from the threat of various ethnic groups.

Asean countries may believe that only the junta can control the insurgency movements. Actually, that’s not the case. The ethnic groupings and their dissatisfaction with the current regime is essentially a political issue.

Even if the junta did collapse, there are many capable people including Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders who can assume leadership roles in the government. However, at the moment almost all potential leaders are in prison or in exile. And of course, there are also ethnic leaders who are ready and capable to join the leadership as soon as the right conditions exist.

Any "power vacuum" would be filled by new, talented people who are now denied the opportunity to serve their country. And, need it be said, with such open-minded people in government a "power vacuum" would be an opportunity to replenish the soul of the nation with freedom loving people. In fact, anarchy is the best description of Burma's present state, a military-ruled system of anarchy.

Here are a few examples: the regime uses hired thugs to create riots amid peaceful demonstrations. The thugs are called “dutiful citizens.” They were organized to murder Suu Kyi in 2003, but she narrowly escaped. During the 1988 uprising, the then government deliberately created a condition of “anarchy” by freeing thousands of angry criminal prisoners from the jails across the country.

The stooges were paid to poison several water wells in Rangoon’s townships among other things. The military deliberately created conditions for them to loot factories and warehouses. Then, the coup-staging generals called it “anarchy.” Yes it was—state-sponsored anarchy. For decades, military rule has proved itself incapable to govern the country.

Burma was once one of the most promising and wealthiest countries in the region, before the military took power in 1962. Burma is now a prison, and its people are among the poorest in the world. It’s time for many Asean officials to do some serious soul searching by asking if they want to be a friend of the Burmese people or a friend of the generals.
Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo said, “We must prevent anarchy in Burma.” If Asean officials really want to help solve Burma's crisis, they must stop talking nonsense such as "power vacuum" and "anarchy."
For the Burmese people, it is midnight on a moonless night—it can't get any darker.