KAOWAO NEWS NO. 100

Readers’ Front

Poor attitudes on condom use put Burmese at risk

Stalwart criticisms of National Convention

HRP welcomes NMSP’s decision over National Convention

Mon facing a lost generation of youth

Suspects in murder case executed by Burmese Army commander

SPDC soldiers die after eating poisoned chicken

UN council approves US bid for Myanmar discussion

Peak Oil: What We Know Now

A Proposal Towards Correct and Peaceful Political Solutions in Burma

Debate by Thant Zin Tun and Pago Hongsar

Readers’ front

Dear readers,

We invite comments and suggestions on improvements to Kaowao newsletter. With your help, we hope that Kaowao News will continue to grow to serve better the needs of those seeking social justice in Burma. And we hope that it will become an important forum for discussion and debate and help readers to keep abreast of issues and news.  We reserve the right to edit and reject articles without prior notification. You can use a pseudonym but we encourage you to include your full name and address.

Regards,

Editor

kaowao@hotmail.com, www.kaowao.org

On “the plundering of Burma’s forests”

It is very interesting to be kept informed of what is happening there (“The plundering of Burma’s forests”).  The part on logging is very interesting and if there are any further information on the companies involved in the logging, could you share it with us, as in Papua New Guinea we also have a serious problems with logging companies doing illegal things and spoiling the environment.

Kenn Mondiai

Papua New Guinea Eco-Forestry Forum Inc.

It is sad to learn how our resource is depleted because of bad governing and greedy neighbouring business companies.  We (local people in Burma) are not aware of this issue because we are not well informed how forest and other resource affect our life.  It is an urgent need to educate the government and local population on the environment issues.

Kun DaneMon (Thailand)

Poor attitudes on condom use put Burmese at risk

(Kaowao: December 10, 2005)

Three Pagodas Pass -- “Seventy percent of sex workers in this border town do not use a condom,” says a State Peace and Development Council medical worker after meeting with the public for the first time.

“Only 30% of sex workers use a condom,” said a participant quoting Dr. Soe Winn.

The brothel owner supplies sex workers with only one free condom per day, even though a Thai NGO, the Pattanarak Foundation, provides enough condoms for the workers. “Brothel owners take the condoms and sell them instead,” says a Women and Child Rights Project coordinator, Ms Mi Khmom Htaw. The NGO can only provide condoms to sex workers through the owners.

Thai policemen, who have better knowledge about AIDS, use condoms, but the Burmese, especially from the ethnic groups, do not. “The men get drunk and refuse to wear one,” a sex worker said during an interview with a Kaowao reporter.

A sex worker invites only trouble when they ask their customers to wear a condom, “I was threatened with a gun and was beaten once after suggesting to my customer that he should wear a condom,” said Soe Soe (not her real name), a young sex worker at the border town. “They are more likely to use one if I ask them to before they drink. Most Karen ceasefire soldiers do not use a condom,” she added.

With brothels and prostitution being illegal in Burma, it is difficult for sex workers to protect themselves from diseases. The sex workers have no control over the use of a condom; the customer decides if he should wear a condom.

According to a young Mon from Mudon Township, central Mon State, some 10^th grade standard students are working as prostitutes to make ends meet, as their parents are too poor to support them.

“I did not have sex with her after I found out she was in the 10^th grade, she’s only 14 years old,” he said. “Customers pay around 20,000 Kyats for one night,” he added.

According to a community worker from Chaung Zone Township, Mon State, some AIDS patients in her township do not go to the township hospital to receive treatment. They suffer in silence and don’t receive any consultation from a medical doctor. “It’s not easy to estimate the number of AIDS patients,” she explained.

Some sex workers in Three Pagodas Pass are from a sewing factory in Rangoon. Human traffickers lured them after promising them a good job on the border. “They were sold to brothel owners after arriving at the border,” Ms. Htaw said.

According to blood test results from those donating their blood, there are approximately 5 people tested positive for HIV each month, “Most are from Three Pagodas Pass.  We test their blood, but cannot treat them with medicine,” said Mon medical workers Nai Ong Khit Nyan, alarmed at the results.

“In southern Mon State prostitution has increased, more brothels are going up each year,” Ye township residents said.

The brothel owners bribe local commanders and township authorities to set up shop, “Even some Burmese authorities own a brothel,” residents said.

When Burmese authorities and Thai police visit the brothels, they don’t have to pay the sex workers.  “I and 5 of my coworkers were threatened with arrest if we didn’t sleep with them, we are not lucky,” said one sex worker in Sangkhlaburi last week.

A distance university student from Moulmein, the capital of Mon State, said that some students are involved in prostitution because of poverty. Most do not use a condom because of poor knowledge of AIDS, isolation, the absence of social support, and stigmatization, which discourages its use.

“Condoms are rare in Mon State, young people are not well educated about AIDS and in using a condom and are prone to ignore safe practices,” Ms. Mi Mi said after arriving back to the border from the capital.

Many sex customers refuse to wear a condom, which will only contribute to the spread of AIDS and other diseases, like hepatitis. “Most young people who live together as couples do not use a condom saying they are not sex workers so it’s not necessary to use one,” said a New Mon State Party medical worker who opened clinic in the rural area of Mon State.

Stalwart criticisms of National Convention

(Kaowao: December 9, 2005)

Ethnic and democratic groups have welcomed New Mon State Party’s decision to quit the government sponsored National Convention.

In the months leading up to the National Convention, Mon communities in exile and home, strongly criticized the party’s intention to attend the NC.

“We wanted to speak out to the international community on what kind of political system we want to create, we as a people yearn for democracy; that’s why we decided to attend the NC in the past.  But the NC is just a tactic on part of the military junta to win over the ethnic armed groups,” a senior member of NMSP said.

Mr. Nai Chan Toy, Joint Secretary of the party who led the party delegation was a key player in challenging the convention, asserting that, “the SPDC convention will fail to live up to the expectations of the Burmese people, it lacks focus and above all it lacks sincerity.”  He and his party decided to downgrade the NC by sending low profile central committee members for the second session. 

“There was direct threat from Military Intelligence (at that time) that ceasefire groups jointly present their statements. There were, at first, about 28 ethnic groups who joined, but finally only about 6 of the stronger ones left due to the MI threats.”

He stated an alternative approach, pointing out several weak points of the SPDC’s ‘104 facts’ list.  “The SPDC wants to run the country in a military way,” he explained. The SPDC were angry with the delegate of the NMSP for stating these views.

The SPDC started romancing the NMSP more often after Khin Nyunt was purged last year at which time it was rumored that the party was asked to surrender its arms.

“We will not give up our arms up or surrender,” a senior member of the party said.  Some senior members of the party choose not to dance with the SPDC, the SPDC shows a clear lack of respect to the NMSP’s political position, and party members cannot travel freely inside their own state.

“Political dialogue is the way to solve the country’s problem, we need mutual respect and mutual cooperation, if we cannot achieve this, we have to try to achieve our goals by holding arms,” he added.

HRP welcomes NMSP’s decision over National Convention

(Kaowao: December 7, 2005)

Hongsawatoi Restoration Party welcomed the NMSP’s decision not to attend the National Convention.

With about 150 people in attendance, the HRP chairman, Nai Pan Nyunt, stated that, “attending the NC would betray the Mon people and he supports the NMSP’s decision.”

“The NMSP made the right decision not to attend and the proposals on reconsidering the ceasefire was generally welcomed by all commentators.  I call on the Mon people to work together in our struggle for freedom and self-determination,” Chairman Nai Pan Nyunt said.

The meeting was called to discuss the Mon splinter armed group’s future activities including the NMSP’s decision over the NC.

Mon communities in the Thai Burma border and overseas were also pleased with the NMSP’s decision. “The right solution for the party is needed for the future,” Nai Min, a Mon veteran from Waeng Ka said.

“This is the right path for all those concerned people to quit the NC.  It will not bear fruit for the Mon people,” said Mehm Kancee, a young Mon political activist in United States.

Sources close to NMSP said that the party held talks at their headquarters in the third week of November and considered the SPDC’s treatment toward its northern ethnic ceasefire allies before deciding to leave the NC.

The latest news from Mon State said that there is minor tension between the two sides after the party’s decision came out on December 3, 2005.

Mon facing a lost generation of youth

(Kaowao: December 10, 2005)

Bangkok -- Chan Ong represents the younger Mon generation, who leave school at a young age to find work abroad to support their families in Burma. Chan dropped out of university in Burma because of financial difficulties and with no passport or legal status migrated illegally to Thailand to work in a 4 D job.

After finishing university in Karen State (he disliked the colleges around his hometown) he refused to work as a schoolteacher in his village because he wanted to study information technology and English, a grand dream for Burmese students. He graduated in mathematics in Karen State and went to Thailand for 6 months, but is home again in Burma, jobless.

Hundreds of young people from his village, recent graduates, distance education students, and many, who have not even finished junior high school, have migrated to Thailand. Most don’t want to leave because they have no experience working in a foreign country, but feel pressured to do so by their parents and relatives who say there’s no use waiting around for a dead end job working for the Burmese government.

SPDC civil servants make barely enough money to get by; besides, most look down on those who can land a job with the government. At home, parents and relatives don’t want their children to continue at school or work in government services, but will instead persuade them to work in Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore where they can earn a better income.

Even children, aged between 13 and 14 years old, often pack up their belongings and head to Thailand by themselves without any prior knowledge of what to expect, most are encouraged to leave by their parents and relatives. The culture of ‘obeying your parents’ forces sons and daughters out of their homes to earn money.

About ninety percent of young men and women from Chan’s village have gone to Thailand, the younger students, he said, wanted to stay and study, but broke down under pressure by their parents and relatives to give up school.

Nai Lavi a high school graduate said he had to drop out of university after feeling guilty about attending university. “I was too big of a burden for my parents,” he explained. “I had to go,” he added. At 18 years old, he went to Malaysia first and then on to Thailand.  After quitting his 4 D job (dangerous, difficult, dirty, and distant) packing rice sacks for 150 baht a day for the Uthai Company, he decided to work with pro-democracy opposition groups in Thailand. “The company abused us, they abuse everybody’s rights,” he said of the Uthai Company. 

The educational environment is another barrier to receiving a good education in Burma. Miss Smod Chan said if she wanted to, she could pay bribe money to her head teacher to pass her exams. “People who have the money can easily pass and get the high marks needed for Distance Education”, she explained. She is a second year distance university student in Moulmein, the capital of Mon State, she choose not to go this route, saying, “I wanted to rely on my ability to pass the exam.’’  She went to Thailand and worked there for 6 months, then returned to Burma for further study. Her brother and sisters are working in Thailand to support her.

“I want to be a lawyer, but I can’t attend university during the day because my brother and sisters would have to pay more,” she added.

Nai Win Ong, famous in his home village for being a success in Singapore, refused to work in government service after graduating; he left to Singapore the day he graduated from Rangoon University. Today he is a Singaporean after being granted a permanent citizenship card.

Land confiscation in Mon State have forced many people into poverty, especially in Ye township, which has created a context of extreme vulnerability for all people, but the young are faced with the pressure to support their families in some way and decide to leave home.

After the New Mon State Party reached ceasefire agreement with Burmese State Peace and Development Council in 1995, many young students from Ye township moved to Mudon Township in central Mon state to continue their studies. They had to spend a lot of money to move to the most famous high school in Mon State.

Young men such as Nai, Pe and Mroh Mon from Ye township finished high school in Mudon township around 2000. They said that they are the first of their generation in their villages to finish both high school and then graduate from Mon State University.

However, after 2003, more land was confiscated and the whole of southern Ye township area has become a battleground. The young people also fled from this area due to many kinds of human rights abuses, such as portering, torture, murder, and rape.

At a distinct disadvantage, suffering from hardship, a lack of employment opportunities, coupled with human rights abuses, more international attention needs to be focused on this excluded population to tackle the problems they face in leaving their home villages, particularly in providing assistance to them when working abroad and to improve their situation back home in receiving a proper education in a democratic Burma.  

Suspects in murder case executed by Burmese Army commander

(Independent Mon News Agency: December 8, 2005)

A local Burmese military commander executed two men who were arrested on suspicion of killing 11 people and robbing several others during the Burmese Water in a famous pagoda in Ye township in April 2005.

The two suspects, Nai Madepron and Nai Shar-Oo from Morkanin village were executed in the Khawzar cemetery with the order of the local No. 3 Tactical Commander Colonel Myint Aung, according to sources close to the commander.

Before the execution, the commander confirmed with the Khawzar headman that the two men were the robbers involved in the killing and looting of personal properties at the festival in Kyait-ma-lort pagoda during the New Year’s festival in April.

Due to the confirmation, the commander ordered the execution of Nai Madepron after two days of interrogations and torture. Nai Shar Oo from Thanphuzayart Township was also executed at the end week of last month after interrogation with torture, the source said. Before Nai Shar Oo’s execution, the military commander seized some guns in Morkanin village according to Nai Shar Oo’s informant.

Nai Madepron and Nai Shar Oo had worked in a famous Mon Dancing Group named Mon Chit Soe for a month. The two were arrested after Khawzar residents informed the military commander that they were the perpetrators.

The two men joined the festival in Khawzar town along with the Mon Dancing Group; they were not members of any Mon armed groups. According to a source close to IB No 31 military officers, the two had planned to rob people at the festival which is celebrated in town, confessed Nai Shar-Oo during the interrogation.

The robbery took place during the Water Festival and hundreds of people were robbed. The robbers stole many million Kyats worth of gold ornaments. The robbery turned into a gunfight when an army officer from the Burmese Army opened fire and shot the robber. The group retaliated and killed 11 people and many were seriously beaten up.

The two men had worked in the Dancing Group, after the robberies the managers and performers in the Group were in shock.   Burmese Army’s officers also investigated and questioned some people from the Group to provide information about the two men.

SPDC soldiers die after eating poisoned chicken

(Kaowao, November 26, 2005)

Three Pagodas Pass -- SPDC soldiers looted Karen villagers for livestock on the Burma side close to Three Pagodas Pass and conscripted the local villagers for portering.

“The SPDC soldiers rounded up several men including the elderly, in addition to taking livestock on November 16,” said a Karen villager to a Kaowao reporter.

Some of the conscripted men were released after paying in bribe money.

“Some of the older men paid 700 Baht and the younger paid 1000 Baht to be released from conscription,” the young man said.  People living near the border area use the Thai Baht as currency even though they live 30 to 40 kilometers from the border.

“The SPDC take as much livestock and farm produce as they can when they come to loot the villages.  Two SPDC soldiers died after eating chicken meat, which were poisoned by the villagers during the offensive,” said a Mon community worker from the area.

The area is situated along the motor road to the Three Pagodas Pass border town that leads to Thanbyuzayat Township, Mon State.  It is controlled by the Karen National Union who taxes the local population in the area. The KNU soldiers sustain themselves by taxing passengers, local traffic and traded goods. There are over ten Karen villages in the area that are often caught in the middle during military offensives.

“In turn, the SPDC soldiers often accuse the local villagers of supporting the KNU and target them at random,” the community worker said.

In previous years, the SPDC usually takes the offensive against the KNU. The civilians suffer the most during this time, particularly those who are in transit, such as passengers and truck drivers.  Others caught in the middle are vegetable growers who lose their produce to marauding soldiers who loot the local villages for food during the fighting.

The Light Infantry Battalion No. 534 led by Colonel Kyaw Thu is active in the area.  Sources say that the two sides use landmines.

UN council approves US bid for Myanmar discussion

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 2, 2005 (Reuters) - The Security Council agreed for the first time on Friday to discuss human rights in Myanmar after its rulers extended house arrest for opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi for another year.

But the action, which came at Washington's request, fell short of adding the situation in the military-led Southeast Asian country to the council's formal agenda.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said he hoped U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would agree to personally brief the 15-member council on Myanmar in the next few weeks.

No date was set for the closed-door briefing, which the council agreed to unanimously, and it was unclear if Annan would accept.

"I think it is quite important that the situation in Burma will now be before the council," Bolton told reporters. U.S. officials routinely refer to Myanmar as Burma, the country's name before the ruling junta changed it in 1990.

The United States has unilaterally imposed wide-ranging sanctions on Myanmar, including a ban on most imports, and has criticized Asia-Pacific nations for not speaking out against its human rights record.

Putting a matter on the council's formal agenda would have opened the way to further discussions as well as official council statements and resolutions. But it also would have required the support of nine members if a vote was demanded.

Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali, who had earlier questioned the U.S. plan along with China, Russia and Japan, said the council action meant only that there would be a briefing.

"That means there is no follow-up, and we do not expect any follow-up," Baali said.

Bolton urged a long-term view, telling reporters to "keep your eyes on the prize."

An earlier U.S. attempt to raise the focus on political repression in Myanmar was rebuffed in June when Russia, backed by China and Algeria, argued that the issue was outside the council's mandate to ensure international peace and security.

Bolton raised the matter again earlier this week, only to have China object that it needed more time to study it.

Bolton had asked the council for the briefing in a letter expressing concern about "the deteriorating situation" in the country, which the military has ruled since 1962, ignoring a 1990 landslide election victory by Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party.

Suu Kyi has been under house arrest since May 2003. Officials informed her last weekend of the decision to extend her detention by 12 months.

Peak Oil: What We Know Now

(By Bill Henderson, Countercurrents.org: 27 November, 2005)

The momentous challenge facing the Bush Administration and America is the very real danger to the continuing supply of America's very lifeblood: oil.

Global oil production will peak (or has already possibly peaked) within several decades. Already, growing oil demand - from China and India especially, joining ever increasing American (20% of global demand) and other developed world usage - has created a very tight market with the price for benchmark crude oil staying above $50US. Some market analysts see US$100 oil in our immediate future and pessimists direly predict the mother of all depressions, a new dark age and even human die-off as we go over the cliff past Hubbert's Peak down the steep slopes of rapidly diminishing global oil production.

Oil at US$100 would be bad for business. This is a specter to chill an Administration trying to manage an indebted, precarious US economic hegemony based upon a very vulnerable dollar. This ominous scenario is potentially more devastating to Bush's America than a hundred 9/11s.

The Bush Administration didn't attempt regime change in Iraq just to protect America and its hegemony from the threat of WMDs and terrorism; it wasn't entirely 'a new crusade lead by geopolitical fantasists' against radical Islam and in support of America's Middle East ally Israel; it didn't try to form a coalition of the willing like in the first Gulf War just to confront Iraqi aggression.

The permanent military bases and Pentagon sized American consul offices in Iraq are being built because 60% of the world's crude comes from an increasingly hostile Middle East - this percentage of the supply of the world's most valuable commodity will increase over the next decade - and because control of Iraq is the decisive high ground for control of the Middle East..

American troops are not in Iraq for ideological reasons; this is not a replay of the domino theory in Vietnam. Whether or not the neocon dream of nation building succeeds - emulating the success of American leadership in postwar Japan and Germany - is secondary to continued American military control of the key strategic area of the most important geo-strategic area on the globe.

America has more than 800 military bases globally and awesome military imperial power. Protection of American interests, especially American business and the flow of commodities vital to America, is the US military mandate. Given globalization and the building oil supply realities, traditional Republican isolationism is not even a consideration.

After the first Gulf War, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney agreed with a traditional Republican foreign policy non-interventionist response to Saddam's Iraq: The US and coalition did not push into Iraq initiating regime change, occupation and nation building. They withdrew, banking upon military and multilateral containment, and continuing US economic control of oil supply (supported, of course, by a century old American military presence).

But by 1999 there was a new more pressing reality. In a speech to Institute of Petroleum in November 1999 Dick Cheney showed a keen appreciation of the building problem:

"For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies..."

Access to oil is the IMPORTANT problem. And it is a US government problem. At the beginning of Bush Jr's first Administration, long before 9/11, Cheney was now a leading advocate of regime change. On hindsight, Saddam's WMD threat and the war on terror were just inflated excuses: optical, political practicalities to hide the real underlying reasons for US actions.

American choice of what can only be perceived as a military grab-the-oil policy path to the coming end of oil will no doubt engender responses - unpredictable perhaps very surprising responses - from a new growing world power, China, from a still nuclear armed Russia, and from the wider world community who will become increasingly concerned about American leadership and their own position within or without the military fortress controlling access to oil.

Given the momentous problem of peak oil and the oil importance of the Middle East and their choice of the grab-the-oil policy path, the Bush Administration has little choice but to stay in Iraq, must keep building American military bases there, must continue the neocon dream of nation building in spite of the insurgency. In spite of American casualties; in spite of the building Islamic backlash. Losing Iraq, unlike retreat from Vietnam, is not an option.

www.pacificfringe.net
604-886-8036

Opinion

A Proposal Towards Correct and Peaceful Political Solutions in Burma

(By Nai Thet Lwin)

Burma is a multi-ethnic society with eight ethnic majorities, including the ethnic Burman, plus more than a hundred ethnic minorities. Burma is an overwhelmingly Buddhist country with more than 95 per cent of the population being Buddhist - traditional or devout. The Mon and the Burman have a common Buddhist religious belief and share a common Buddhist social culture, whereas many of the other non-Burman ethnic majorities and minorities have a different religious belief. The Burman alone is generally estimated to make about 65 per cent of the entire population of Burma. Religiously and culturally speaking, the Mon and the Burman are identical. But linguistically speaking, the Mon and the Burman have completely different languages which mainly make the Burman and the Mon to be different peoples. Historically, the Mon people had established and lived in their own independent kingdoms for a very long time until their last kingdom, Hamsavati or Hongsawatoi, was invaded and annexed by the neighboring Burman kingdom led by King Alaungphaya or Aungzeya in 1757. The Mon and the six other non-Burman ethnic majorities - namely Karen, Shan, Kayah/Karenni, Kachin, Arakanese and Chin -- have had a common political struggle against the ethnocentric Burman rule since Burma's independence from the British colonial rule in 1948.

While having a common Buddhist religious belief and sharing a common Buddhist social culture with the Burman, the Mon has fought against the post independence Burman-dominated rule for the last half century to regain its national self-determination or independence. It is clear that the Mon has some common ground with the Burman religiously and culturally on the one hand and has some common ground with the non-Burmans politically on the other hand, having a foot in both camps. That is, the Mon is naturally taking the neutral mid-position which gives it a "unique mediator role" to play between the two opposing camps of the Burman and the non-Burmans.

The Mon also has the longest history with the Burman. The age-old socio-political problems between the Mon and the Burman are also to be solved for lasting Mon-Burman reconciliation. The Burman historical perspective - of the so-called First Burman Empire established by King Anawratha, the so-called Second Burman Empire established by King Burinaung and the so-called Third Burman Empire established by King Alaungphaya - is totally unacceptable to the Mon, because all these Burman Empires were established by sheer force of arms and at the cost of independent Mon kingdoms. Particularly, King Alaungphaya's establishment of the Third Burman Empire by means of an unprecedented bloodshed genocidal operation against the Mon by cruelly massacring a large number of' innocent non-combatant civilian Mon men, women and children plus 3,000+ Mon Buddhist monks is socially unacceptable, politically unforgivable and religiously unforgettable to the Mon people. The Burman king, Alaungphaya or Aungzeya, also burnt down or destroyed all the Mon palm leaf literature and stone inscriptions he found. The one and only Burman king loved and respected by the Mon is King Kyansittha of Pagan. There are the bright golden peacocks that would follow in Kyansittha's footsteps. But the short-sighted and narrow-minded peacocks have unremorsefully been following Alaungphaya's footsteps in their wishful dream and ambitious attempt to establish a Fourth Burman Empire.

All the peoples of Burma - both Burman and non-Burmans -- have a common struggle or termination of militarism and establishment of democracy. The democracy struggle is the common struggle of the Burman and all the non Burmans without regard to race or religion. It is the common struggle for termination of the brutal Burman-dominated racist military dictatorship, which was formerly known as the State Law and 0rder Restoration Council/SLORC and is currently known as the State Peace and Development Council/SPDC.

Towards Solutions Initial Step One: Buddhist Religious Issue Between the Mon and the Burman

As stated above, King Alaungphaya who was also called Aungzeya indiscriminately and cold-bloodedly slaughtered 3,000+ Mon Buddhist monks; the slaughter reportedly included the forced trampling by elephants. This slaughtering of the 3,000+ Buddhist monks or members of the Sangha caused and has left a deep and ugly wound in the journey of the Buddha Sasana in the Land of Pagodas. This ugly wound caused by King Alaungphaya or Aungzeya, however, has not been given proper attention by the Burman in general and has not been much known to the outside world, Buddhist or non-Buddhist. Those of the narrow-minded and short-sighted racist peacocks are even very proud of having had King Alaungphaya or Aungzeya and put him in the place of one of their great kings. This ugly wound, in the Buddhist religious point of view, cannot be neglected. Venerable Akworh, the most famous Mon monk-writer of the time who experienced this bloody event and who had himself go into hiding in order to escape the slaughter, remarked like this:

"His Majesty Aungzeya was of a very fierce and cruel disposition, and made no account at all of life. He put to death many monks, and their iron alms bowls and silk robes were taken away, and the homespun robes were made into foot mats. Of some they made pillows, of some they made belts, and of some they made sails. The monks' robes were scattered all over land and water." (Translated by Mr. Halliday)

The Mon abbot, Venerable Akworh, was surprisingly endowed with very high levels of morality, wisdom and forbearance. He only taught the Mon people for forgiveness and loving kindness. After seeing the cruel slaughtering of 3,000+ monks, Venerable Akworh, by cutting one of his fingers and by making it a devotional offering before the image of Lord Buddha, vowed that he would truly support the cause of perpetuation of the Buddha Sasana. Although and after the independent Monland of Hamsavati fell to the Burman, Ven. Akworh still recognized its living legitimacy.

In the Burman history, there was a boycott literally "the overturning of the alms-bowl" by the Buddhist Burman monastic community against Khondaw Maung Kyaban, who had made some minor oral insults towards members of the Sangha or Buddhist monastic community. Why should not then have Alaungphaya or Aungzeya, the barbarous man who slaughtered 3,000+ monks, been boycotted by the Burman monastic community? Why is this barbaric man who died and fell head first to the deepest hell two and a half centuries ago still included in the present list of the Burman national heroes? Now, the time has come for the golden peacocks, monks and laymen, to be brave enough to speak out and promise to do what should be done towards truly cleansing and healing the ugly wound. There are the golden sheldrakes, monks and laymen, who would help for this. Without properly cleansing and healing this ugly wound on the Road of Buddha Sasana, we cannot go any further. There are supernatural forces that have been very angry.

Towards Solutions Initial Step Two: Historical Issue Between the Mon and the Burman

As mentioned above, the Mon has the longest history with the Burman since the known beginning of the Burman in Pagan. There is a Burman saying: The beginning of the Burman was from Pagan. At the time of Pagan, the Mon had their own independent country namely Suvanabhumi or literally Golden land. The Burman received Buddhist literature and cultural heritage from and via the Mon. So, in the practice of Buddhist literature and culture, the earlier Mon society was naturally much mature than the later Burman society. Buddhism and the Mon people are undividable. All through the long period of the Mon-Burman history, the Burman rulers, except King Kyansittha, have all used force of arms in relating to the Mon society. Blinded by the racial and racist pride, in stead of expressing thanks and gratitude to the Mon, the successive Burman rulers or governments have always bitten the hand that fed their Burman society. The Burman should not look down upon the Mon. The Mon has many hidden champions. In times of a real big crisis, one of them who are fittest and capable will come up to help solve the crisis.

The socio-political problems that have occurred between the Mon and the Burman from the period of Pagan up to the present day are also to be solved for the sake of long-lasting or permanent Mon-Burman reconciliation and friendship. The one-sided accounts of the history written by the war victors are to be rejected. History is history. It is only the accounts of events that had happened in the past. It may be good or it may be bad. We cannot change it. We should not conceal the bad nor exaggerate the good. Both the good and the bad parts are to be learned in order to keep up the good and avoid the bad for the benefit of the present and future generations. Both the Mon and the Burman historical perspectives - the loser's perspective and the victor's perspective -- are to be evaluated in a fair and impartial manner and to be re-written from the point of view of wisdom that will benefit not just the peoples of Burma but for the whole world.

What is the correct political solution for Burma?

As mentioned above, there are 8 ethnic majorities and 100+ ethnic minorities in Burma. When we say "ethnic majority", the language is not less important than the number of population and the historical background of the people. There is a Mon precautionary saying: "If the Mon written language or literature disappears, the Mon people will be extinct." Language is the most important organ of the Mon people. What are the political goals of the peoples or the ethnic nationalities of Burma, including the ethnic Burman? A democratic federal union? Or a federation of independent nations? For the greatest benefit and in the best interest of all, the Mon shall restore its homeland and establish an independent republic of the Golden Monland of Hamsavati lawfully and without violence.

Disintegration of the Union is not the Burman's concern and none of the Burman's business. The Burman may also secede from the Union if it wants to. The Burman people do not need to worry for the non-Burman peoples. The non-Burman peoples will determine their own fate and destiny, because they have the right to. The Burman people should realize that all the non-Burman peoples have hated and feared the chronic ethnocentric Burman rule. To be loved and respected and trusted by the non-Burman peoples, the Burman people will need to show their real broad-mindedness, far-sightedness and fairness of mind. And the Burman should understand that this process will take time.

The NLD has expressed its opposition against the recent declaration of the Shan State independence. This clearly shows that the Burman-dominated popular National League for Democracy does not recognize the right of the non-Burman peoples to determine their own fate and destiny. That is to say, the Burman-dominated NLD has failed to show its genuine good will towards the non-Burman peoples in order for it to be trusted by them. If the Shan people decide to secede from the so-called Union of Burma and choose to live independently, it is their right to do so. Their secession only means that they exercise their right. When they are determining their own destiny by exercising their own right, it is unfair for us to oppose their decision. Historically, the Burman's concern of disintegration of the Union has always been mixed with its desire for keeping the non-Burman peoples under its ethnocentric rule. Disintegration of the Soviet Union has proved that more peoples have become independent and are now able to represent themselves in the United Nations with full dignity as those old UN member nations, thereby helping the United Nations in finding out the correct solutions of the crises occurring in the Fourth World and thus strengthening the UN in its peace-making process.

Debate on the Proposal Towards Correct and Peaceful Political Solutions in Burma

The proposal, beautifully worded in term of spectrum of historical love-and-hate relation between the Mon and the Burman and other ethnic groups, but lack of realism and careful analyses in term of current political climate of Burma, proposed that the Mon shall restore its homeland and establish an independent republic of the Golden Monland of Hamsavati lawfully and without violence.   It is merely a wishful thinking overlooking the social, political and religious interlacing background of all the nationalities that makes up Burma as a multicultural society.

The proposal also crosses a line of generally accepted idea, that is, the militarism that has exited since the 1962 military coup being a common enemy to be defeated in return for a democratic Burma, saying that The NLD has expressed its opposition against the recent declaration of the Shan State independence. This clearly shows that the Burman-dominated popular National League for Democracy does not recognize the right of the non-Burman peoples to determine their own fate and destiny.

In fact the NLD party which was born out of the 1988 democratic movement, brutally crashed down by the military, represents the people from all walks of life, so it is at all in no position for the NLD to recognize any individual idea, say, the recent declaration of independent Shan State, which might support the ruling military junta's propaganda machine reasoning its continued clinch on power as the only way to prevent the disintegration of Burma and to perpetuate the unity of all ethnic nationalities.

The 1988 democratic movement called for democracy, human rights and reestablishment of a democratic Burma encompassing all the rights of every Burmese citizen. The NLD as a task force which was given mandate by the Burmese populace in the 1990 general elections to bring the stated objectives of the 1988 democratic movement into completion has the responsibility to object any wishful thinking which can delay or derail the right track of implementing the people's true desire for democracy as fighting against the brutality of the military dictatorship rule on the other hand.

Nationality issues such as self-determination, session and socio-and-geo problems and so on should not be prerequisite at the cost of fighting the common enemy hand-in-hand. It is not the right time to dig deep the old histories of black reign by warmonger Burmese kings in the pretext of rejecting the conventional wisdom of democracy which ties different individual ideas to the united strength of solid opposition to the military dictatorship.

It is sorrowful that the proposal made the great history of the Mon people shrink to the extent that the Mon harbors religious hatred to the Burman who got inherited Buddha Sasana from them. The religious history of Burma never concealed the fact that Theravada Buddhism had originated from the Mon land. Lord Buddha teaches the layman to take the middle way to free from the arrest of vicious cycle of rebirths. This doctrine applies to all Buddhists. Except feeling bad from the age-old history of annexation of their land by the Burman kings, the Mon people who are devout Buddhists and do not worship any supernatural forces, would not feel necessary to reevaluate their invaluable history of spreading Buddhism to others.

The proposal also misses the point when it comes to describing democracy movement as a common struggle. NLD, the only remaining opposition party which won most votes in Mon state than in any other states- Burma consists of seven states and seven divisions- in 1990 May general elections is classified as short-sighted and narrow-minded. The true fact that our democracy movement can stay aloft until now is mainly due to the NLD's decisive leadership and unwavering support it gets from the oppressed people.

Worse, it describes the Burman as oppressors. It is common knowledge that the Burman people are too suffering the same as the non-Burmans do under the rule of the military dictatorship. No one suffers less.  The proposal degrades the high-fighting spirit of the Mon people into neutral mind position which can be easily persuaded into total submission.

In general term democracy means "by the people, for the people". The basic concepts of it are freedom, peace, equal rights and justice based on the majority respecting the rights of minority and in return the minority obeying the majority. One can exercise one's own rights within the frameworks of democracy in this regard. In the case of Burma termination of military dictatorship and establishment of democracy must be given top priorities more than any other political issues. Only when do all the nationality races get guaranteed the internationally accepted norm of democracy, the exercising of the individual rights can materialize.

The proposal wrongly takes the disintegration of the Soviet Union as an example when comparing Burma with. The Union fell apart not because of nationality races, but because of the collapse of communism around the world. The military junta rules Burma, relying on its armed might, not with practicing any exiting political system. Declaration of secession by any party will be like as shooting water canon into the air as long as the military junta stays in power.

Do not blame the Burman people for a handful of military thugs in power. The Mon people will not let themselves to be fallen victim to one's wishful dream. The Burman and the Mon are same spirited force in the fight for democracy.

In conclusion the proposal should be renamed "A proposal towards wrong and wishful dreaming political solutions in Burma".

Thant Zin Htun

Kuopio Polytechnic University

Finland

Response to Thant Zin Htun on "Gentle man's argument over a proposal towards correct and peaceful political solutions in Burma

<<The proposal, beautifully worded in term of spectrum of historical love-and-hate relation between the Mon and the Burman and other ethnic groups, but lack of realism and careful analyses in term of current political climate of Burma, proposed that the Mon shall restore its homeland and establish an independent republic of the Golden Monland of Hamsavati lawfully and without violence.  It is merely a wishful thinking overlooking the social, political and religious interlacing background of all the nationalities that makes up Burma as a multicultural society.>>

Everybody has dreams and wishful thinking. See Martin Luther King's dream speech. In order to achieve your dream, you have to work hard and have to have faith on it. As old saying, if you work hard, you would become a Buddha.   If Mon people will have faith, they will achieve their goal of establishing independent Mon State. But they have to work hard and wait for the right time and the right moment.   In the past, they have regained their independent state twice after it had been conquered by Burman for hundreds years.

Most Burman believes that struggling independent is wishful thinking.  It may be in Burma's context because Burman people do not want non-Burman to go free and do not want them to decide their own destiny.   But if we look at current world politics, struggling for independent state become more reality than five decades ago because countries around the world become more accepted the principles of self-determination and autonomy. Canada allowed referendum for secession.  More countries are accepting rights of indigenous people than ever.  More countries become independence then ever. Today, member countries in UN are 190 countries, increased from 50 in 1945.

Talking about political environment and background of Burma, it is much not different from Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, and Malaysia of political environment and background.  All these countries have multicultural backgrounds. If ethnic nationalities of these countries can secede, why not Mon or other ethnic nationalities in Burma? Even Burma secedes from India. You may know that Finland secede from Russia.  Those opponents of secession argue that secession would break violence between ethnic groups, especially between subordinate and dominate ethnic groups. This argument is not universally true. Countries like Soviet and Czechoslovakia seceded peacefully while Yugoslavia secedes with violence. There have many studies been done why Soviet broke up peacefully and Yugoslavia with violence. One of the main reasons is whether dominant group retaliate the secession. In other words, whether dominant group such as Russians or Serbs allow the subordinate group to secede. In the case of Soviet, Russian sees other states as equal partners. Thus, they allowed them to secede peacefully and they did not retaliate even though some nationalist Russians wanted to.  We have to remember that there are about 20 percent Russians living in other former Soviet states and also about 20 percent of other ethnic groups of each Soviet former state (ex. Ukrainian) living in Russian state.  In the case of Yugoslavia, Serbian under Milosevic leadership, denied secession of other states especially, Bosnia. Instead, he wanted create "Great Serbia" by killing non-Serbian ethnic groups, especially, Bosnian Muslim. Thus, it depends on future Burman leaders or Burman people how they want to handle the secession in Burma. If Burman people deny or retaliate any ethnic nationalities from peaceful secession, the results will be bloodshed. If Burman people allow them to secede in peaceful way such as holding referendum like in Canada, there will be peaceful results.

Whether we like it or not, given the changes of global politics and strong nationalism of non-Burman, secession in Burma will be inevitable.

<< In fact the NLD party which was born out of the 1988 democratic movement, brutally crashed down by the military, represents the people from all walks of life, so it is at all in no position for the NLD to recognize any individual idea, say, the recent declaration of independent Shan State, which might support the ruling military junta's propaganda machine reasoning its continued clinch on power as the only way to prevent the disintegration of Burma and to perpetuate the unity of all ethnic nationalities.>>

Most of reaction from democratic Burman on Declaration of Shan Independence show the same above argument that if we support the secession or the independence, the SPDC will not hand over the power. Well, do you think the SPDC will hand over the power or give up their power if we condemn secession and if all non-Burman abandon their demands of independent state? I do not think so. After 1988, most non-Burman armed groups or political groups abandon their demands on independent state. (Remember: secession is not unilateral demand of non-Burman. It has agreement between Burman and non-Burman in Pinlong Agreement).  Recently, again, ENC declared that they will not pursue independent state policy. They just want federal democratic system.   The SPDC policy is still the same or does not change regardless of policy changes on non-Burman side. It gets even worse.  We have to understand that SPDC's goal is not safe-guarding the so-called Union of Burma. Their goal is to eliminate or terminate non-Burman race by both violence and non-violence in Burma. To do that, they have to stay in power. People who threaten their power are their enemies regardless of ethnic nationalities (Be Burman or non-Burman). In order to stay in power, they need support from Burman population. Thus, they used the disintegration policy to gain sympathy from Burman majority because they know that majority of Burman (about 99.99%) (including democratic forces) are against the secession by any means. They treat disintegration policy as means rather as ends. If all Burman people, especially democratic forces support the peaceful way of secession, the SPDC will have no policy to use for their propagandas to stay in power.   The SPDC will collapse. (I mean peaceful way of secession is secession by referendum, not by violence. In this case, we allow people freely to decide their destiny).

<<The 1988 democratic movement called for democracy, human rights and reestablishment of a democratic Burma encompassing all the rights of every Burmese citizen. The NLD as a task force which was given mandate by the Burmese populace in the 1990 general elections to bring the stated objectives of the 1988 democratic movement into completion has the responsibility to object any wishful thinking which can delay or derail the right track of implementing the people's true desire for democracy as fighting against the brutality of the military dictatorship rule on the other hand.

Nationality issues such as self-determination, session and socio-and-geo problems and so on should not be prerequisite at the cost of fighting the common enemy hand-in-hand. It is not the right time to dig deep the old histories of black reign by warmonger Burmese kings in the pretext of rejecting the conventional wisdom of democracy which ties different individual ideas to the united strength of solid opposition to the military dictatorship.>>

There is no doubt that the SPDC is common enemy of both democratic Burman and non-Burman. In order to fight the common enemy, we have to build trust each other.  We have to listen each other. We have to discuss each other problems. We have to acknowledge each other grievances. "Forget about your problems and fight for us" attitudes do not work. Moreover, in order to gain trust from non-Burman, Burman democratic forces have to come out clear-cut ethnic policies. If they do not support secession, say it clearly and loudly. Do not blame SPDC for not hand over the power.  So, non-Burman will have clear view of where you stand. 

<<Worse, it describes the Burman as oppressors. It is common knowledge that the Burman people are too suffering the same as the non-Burmans do under the rule of the military dictatorship. No one suffers less.  The proposal degrades the high-fighting spirit of the Mon people into neutral mind position which can be easily persuaded into total submission.>>

I do not want to judge who suffer more or less. Compared to Mon,  Burman has suffered only forty years. Mon have suffered not only under SPDC and New Win rules but also under the past successive Burman rulers for thousands years.   They lost their country. Their race, their culture, their language are almost extinct on earth due to aggressive of successive Burman ruler policy over Mon and genocide committed by  barbarian man Aung Za Ya who has been worshiped by most Burman (including Burman democratic forces) as hero. Believe it or not, Burman students who fled to Three Pagoda Pass (then NMSP's HQ) even sang Aung Za Ya's hero song in their military training at the HQ of Mon armed revolution.

<<The proposal wrongly takes the disintegration of the Soviet Union as an example when comparing Burma with. The Union fell apart not because of nationality races, but because of the collapse of communism around the world. The military junta rules Burma, relying on its armed might, not with practicing any exiting political system. Declaration of secession by any party will be like as shooting water canon into the air as long as the military junta stays in power.>>>

  What do you means collapse of communist around the world? Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korean are still communist states. The collapse of communism is not directly cause the break up of Soviet and Yugoslavia. It is  ethnic nationalism the main cause of the breaking of Soviet and Yugoslavia.  Under communism or Marxism, ethnic nationalism had been oppressed because Marxism/Lenin-Marxism believes that nationalist ideology blurred class loyalties. Once communist ideology was removed, nationalism revealed and exploited. Thus, the nationalism of ethnic nationalities  breaks up the union. Ne Win tried to do  the same thing by imposing socialism in Burma in order to oppress ethnic nationalism in Burma, but it did not work. Civil war continued under Ne Win's rule.

<<Do not blame the Burman people for a handful of military thugs in power. The Mon people will not let themselves to be fallen victim to one's wishful dream. The Burman and the Mon are same spirited force in the fight for democracy.>>

If you do not want Mon or other ethnic groups to see all Burman as oppressors, you have to make clear distinction from oppressive Burman (such as Anoratha, Aung Za Ya, Ba Yin Naung, Ne Win, the SPDC).  Then they can differentiate who is good Burman or bad Burman. If you or democratic Burman worship Aung Za Ya or any of these oppressed Burmans,  it is difficult to distinct good and bad Burman.  Moreover, differentiating good Burman (Democratic Burman) from bad Burman (SPDC and Ne Win)  only by looking at ideological  differences is not  good enough  to distinct between good Burman and bad Burman because democratic Burman under U Nu rules had also  committed atrocities against non-Burman groups.

When we analyze Burma's problem, we should not look at only 1962-present period, which most democratic Burman  do. If we do, we see only a small portion of Burma's problem. The further you look back, the further you will see and give you more broad view of Burma's problem.  Again, only getting rid of SPDC and restoring democracy in Burma will not establish a long permanent peace between Burman and non-Burman. Long lasting permanent peace will be only if we respect and recognize each other rights and destinies, acknowledge each other grievances, and help to achieve each other ultimate goals (tit for tat).

Pago Hongsar