Ob-cw & Cf

(Page 6) Several newly formed ethnic minority nationalist movements, spearheaded by the Karen National Union (formed in 1947), took up arms to press their demands for more autonomy and equal rights in the Union. It is the propaganda of successive Burmese regimes, since the time of PM U Nu that the Karen started armed insurrection. The Karen people’s movement for their rights had been peaceful. It was Gen. Ne Win who provoked the Karen with armed attacks. The Karen took up arms in self-defense, not to press their demands. Please see my observation below to get the Karen people’s perspective of their armed resistance. Karen Uprising All the ethnic armed resistances, including that of the Karen, were all provoked by the Burmese regimes in power. Aung San, the hero of Burma’s independence, promised to consider the Karen’s demand for designating the Irrawaddy Delta as Karen State after independence, because the majority of the Karen people lived there (Not less than 60% of the population). He told the Karen leaders 1 that the Karen people would get “one Kyat and the Burman one Kyat” meaning that there would be complete equality between the Karen and the Burman. However, Aung San and his entire cabinet were assassinated before independence (on July 19, 1947). The power passed into the hands of U Nu, who was under the sway of Burman ultra-nationalists and not as farsighted as Aung San. After independence, Gen Ne Win, a power monger, was vice-chief-of-staff of the Burma armed forces. Chief-of-staff was Gen. Smith Dun, a Karen. The Karen people’s movement for a homeland was peaceful. Prime Minister U Nu totally 2 rejected Aung San’s promise to the Karen people . Ne Win wanted to get rid of the Karen chief of staff and suppress the Karen people’s peaceful movement for their 3 rights . He therefore used his pocket army troops, the militia known as Levies (Burma 4 Territorial Force, or Sit Win Dan in Burmese), to create racial strife by armed attacks 1

One of the slogans on the placards carried by the Karen people in their peaceful demonstration on February 11, 1948 was “Show ‘Karen one Kyat, Burman one Kyat’ at Once.” The slogan was the echo of Gen. Aung San’s assurance to the Karen leaders. 2

Prime Minister U Nu accused the Karen of demanding milking part of the whole cow, meaning that the Karen’s demand was unreasonable. The Burman ultra-nationalists assumed that the Irrawaddy Delta was the exclusive possession of the Burman, by right of conquest, during the feudal days. 3

Ultra-nationalist Gen. Ne Win’s plan was to provoke the Karen into insurrection and crush it with military might within 2 to 3 years’ time. However, the Karen resistance is still alive and well after more than 60 years of struggle. The prominent trait of the Burman ultra-nationalists is over estimation of their own military might and prowess, and underestimation of the ethnic nationalities. It is still true with the SPDC. 4

In early days of Japanese occupation of Burma in 1942, the Burma Independence Army (BIA) troops committed atrocities against the Karens in the Irrawaddy Delta and Papun areas. The Karens resisted

1

on the Karen civilians in Moulmein district in December 1948. His troops then attacked and burned down Karen quarters in Ahlone, Rangoon, and then in Thamine, a town about 8 kilometers from Rangoon, in January 1949. The Karen finally had to resist when Ne Win’s troops attacked the Karen quarters in Insein, which was about 9 kilometers from Rangoon. That was how the Karen armed resistance, or revolution started. Geopolitics & Dictatorships Prime Minister U Nu followed neutral foreign policy and he was one of the founders of non-aligned movement. The periods covering the 50s up to early 80s were a time when the Cold War was at a high point. The Western powers such as Britain, France, the U.S. and etc. did not like neutrality, because with a neutral foreign policy, Burma could fall under the control of international Communism. The West had a hand in the split of the AFPFL party and also in Ne Win’s seizure of power, in 1958. In the 1960 general elections, U Nu won a landslide victory and he continued to follow the neutral foreign policy. One serious mistake he made was making Buddhism the state religion on his return to power. In 1961-62, the ethnic leaders of Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni etc. demanded a change in the Constitution so as to make Burma a genuine Federal Union, as promised by Aung San. Once again Ne Win, the opportunist and power monger, seized power in 5 March 1962 . The West quietly gave assistance and advice to Ne Win to fight the 6

Burmese Communists . However, he fought against the ethnic rebels also, as he had the intention of building Burma into the Fourth Burman Empire, according to aspirations of the 7 Burman ultra-nationalists . He hated federalism. He said that federalism meant disintegration of the country. In spite of aid from the West, Burma was reduced to LLDC in 1987 as a result of the Burma Socialist Program Party (=National Socialist Party, or Nationalsozialismus) policies and the war. It was geopolitics of the time (in the 60s and 70s) that spawned dictators in Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, South Africa, Congo, Argentina etc. The left dictatorships sprung up in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Nicaragua etc. New Geopolitics and Entrenchment of Dictatorship After the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991, the Cold War ended and the West had no more use of the dictators it had supported. However, once in place, it is and it became a full blown incident of racial strife. Gen. Aung San, who was commander in chief of the BIA, was away in Myitkyina, in the far north with the Japanese troops. When he learned about the incident on his return, he immediately met with Karen leaders and apologized for the crimes committed by the BIA. He also started Burman-Karen friendship movement. 5

Ne Win’s excuse for seizing power was ‘to save the Union from disintegration’.

6

West Germany built factories for producing G3 assault rifles and the Italian Beretta sub-machine guns, Britain gave commando training and introduced the infamous ‘4-Cut’ strategy and the US helped with Rader stations and the so-called anti-drug funding. 7

The ultra-nationalist plan was to suppress all the movements of the ethnic nationalities for autonomy and making Burma into a highly centralized unitary state.

2

very difficult to remove dictatorships, like the SPDC and Taliban. After the fall of the Soviet Empire, the neo-liberals of the West advocate the “Development Ideology” (DI) to go with globalization, in the post Cold War era. Countries like Germany, Denmark, Britain, Japan etc. have earnestly 8 advocated unconditional acceptance of DI . In the case of Burma, the DI advocates call for appeasing the SPDC and collaboration with it for development. According to them, development will bring human rights and democracy, automatically. They 9 say that the SPDC is clinging to power simply out of fear . In contrast, it is the belief of the opposition forces that development is impossible under the rule of the SPDC, which will continue to rule the country even after the 2010 elections, under another name and in a different guise. The opposition forces see the junta as the source of all problems in the country, because of its Fascist/Nazi like ideology of extreme racism, militarism and feudalism. With huge funding, some pro-SPDC European NGOs have gained some followers among the democratic and ethnic forces. These followers are preaching the propaganda that the SPDC is an indispensable stake holder and they believe that the participation of SPDC in a long transition period is necessary for peace, stability and to resolve problems of the country. On the other hand, it is the view of the democratic and ethnic forces that the junta may participate in a short interim period (2 to 4 years) of power sharing, during the process of establishing democracy and federalism. After the interim period, the military is not to have any political role in the future of the country. The DI encourages the SPDC to cling to power and makes it to become more 10 entrenched in power . At the same time, the DI has caused serious dissension among the opposition forces, the ethnic as well as democratic organizations, as some of them have become dependent on funds handed out by the pro-SPDC or DI NGOs. It was the DI and the advocates of DI, who had persuaded the Kachin Independence organization (KIO), others in the Shan State, the New Mon State Party (NMSP) and, for a short time, the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP) to 11 reach ceasefire agreement with the military dictatorship in the mid 1990s. Gen. Khin Nyunt, the architect of the ceasefire agreements with the ethnic organizations, 12 managed to get support of some European countries, Japan , China and Thailand in his activities to persuade the ethnic organizations to enter into ceasefire agreements. 8

The DI serves the purpose of the industrialized countries for turning under developed countries into a market for their investment, manufactured goods and obtaining cheap labor and natural resources. 9

The SPDC is incarcerating Daw Suu out of hate and not out of fear. According to its ideology, the SPDC has to totally control the people, lands and natural resources of the country. For that, it has to totally suppress all opposition. 10

The trial of Daw Suu is not by accident. The SPDC sees that pressure by the West, ASEAN and the UN is mainly hot air and it has no need to fear for continuing with its plan to install the Fascist/Nazi like political system. 11

The strategy of the SPDC has been to make easy ceasefire agreements with some groups. Offer impossible terms to the remaining groups and crush them with overwhelming military might.

3

SPDC Plan for Total Control of CF groups At the present, the SPDC is pressuring the ceasefire organizations to transform their armed wings into Border Guard Force (BGF), before 2010 elections. The SPDC military officers are to hold key positions in the BGFs. The SPDC plan to transform the armed wings of the ceasefire organizations is nothing but to disarm those organizations and consequently eliminate them as a political force. On the other hand, the ceasefire organizations are of the view that 13 disarmament should be mutual and they should maintain their armed forces as long as the SPDC practices the policy of aggression and total domination, as shown by the so-called 2008 Constitution drafted and adopted by the SPDC. According to it, the State is the owner of all the lands and natural resources, above and below the ground, of the country. The larger organizations such as the KIO, United Wa State Army (UWSA), the Shan State Army-North (SSA-N) and the New Mon State Party (NMSP) are resisting the pressure. They told the SPDC that they cannot transform their armies into BGFs, because they still have to negotiate for their political rights with the new government, 14 coming into power after 2010 elections . Smaller organizations such as the PNO, PSLO, KNPLF, DKBA etc. have to agree to the SPDC plan. ------------------ <> ------------------

12

There is reason to believe that the Burmese junta’s name change from the SLORC to the SPDC was done on the advice of some European countries and Japan. 13

Gen. Khin Nyunt, the architect of ceasefire agreements, had said that the ethnic nationalities could gain their rights by participation in the National Convention, and that they could resume armed struggle if they found it unsatisfactory. 14

A coalition of ceasefire groups made a 19-point demand at the SPDC National Convention. All the demand was turned down by the SPDC.

4