By Htun Aung Gyaw,
Mizzima News (www.mizzima.com)

September 18, 2003: The term ‘road map’ was used by the United States to tackle some of the problems that constitute the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Burmese military regime ambushed the opposition leader’s trip to Upper Burma, the world was shocked and condemnation mounted against the Burmese military regime. The Thai Prime Minister presented a so-called ‘road map’ for peaceful transition in Burma. The Thai PM’s move has proved to have a chilling effect rather than amounting to an expression of good intentions for its neighbour. Then another ‘road map’ surfaced, produced by Burma’s ethnic nationalities and offering an imaginative rather than a practical approach.

The Thai Road Map

A hidden component of Thai foreign policy is the vision that some day Thailand may become "Suvanna Bummi", the golden land (similar to the Burmese word "Thu wanna Bummi", the leading centre of Southeast Asia economically, industrially and politically. Thai policy makers do not want any country to pull ahead of them. They need followers, not leaders in Southeast Asia. They have exploited Lao’s forest, Burma’s forest and Cambodia’s too.

In this vision, neighbouring countries such as Laos, Burma and Cambodia are given a role as providers of raw materials. While the neighbours will sell raw materials to Thailand’s growing industries, the Thais will produce finished products. Burma is the only country with a capacity to compete with Thailand when it is free from military rule due to its wealth in natural and human resources. The current Thai leadership has no intention to bring about the establishment of democracy in Burma. At a time when the Burmese regime is under pressure from the world community, the Thai government is searching for a way out for the regime by creating a ‘road map’, which whose content is unknown. The Burmese regime has rejected Thailand so-called ‘road map’ and created its own. Thailand quickly supported the regime’s ‘road map’ and shamelessly professed confidence in it despite its lack of time frame and credibility. Why are the Thai leaders acting in this way? Because they want to maintain Burma’s status as one of the "least developed nations" for their own
benefit.

The SPDC’s Road Map

It appears that in the composition of the SPDC’s ‘road map’, two rival groups have agreed to a compromise to reach their goals. Khin Nyunt came out as Prime Minister and his "Road Map" is a make-up plan to prolong its power as the regime did in the past.

First, the result of the 1990 election was ignored. Second, the formation of the National Convention was stalled. After thirteen years, a new National Convention has been convened, again without a time frame.

What does the SLORC/SPDC get after thirteen years? They have bought time by making excuses and introducing fake proposals. At this point in time, they are employing the same old trick, trying to buy time for another ten or twenty years. This is not mere theory - it is fact. We need to see things clearly.

The Johns Hopkins University in Washington D.C. hosted a conference on the National Reconciliation Process in Burma. This conference was attended by Burmese activists, Burmese ambassadors from the U.S. and Britain, scholars and observers. At the end of the conference, I suggested that if SPDC really wanted to see reconciliation between the military and the opposition democratic forces they would have to build trust between the two groups by releasing all political prisoners as a first step.

Ko Myat Soe of the Justice for Human Rights in Burma (JHB) suggested that we need a time frame for processes like the national convention and the constitution-drawing process. Our points were accepted by the audience and recorded in the conference proceedings. The SPDC’s ambassadors
responded that they had no authority to promise that their regime will comply with demands of this kind but that they would convey our messages to their superiors.

Since Khin Nyunt has taken on the role of the Prime Minister, he has refrained from mentioning the issue of the time frame as well as the release of political prisoners. His cold manner indicates that the SPDC’s road map has no meaning or value at all.

The ENSCC’s Road Map

A third road map has been proposed by our minorities brothers. Our ethnic nationality brothers and sisters suffered enough under military rule and so have we, the Burmese.

The Mons, a minority in Burma, form the majority in Mon State as do the Shan, the Kachin, the Karen, the Chin and the Arakanese in their respective areas. Shan State is shared between the minority groups of the Wa, Palaung, Lahu and Pao who want to establish their own states. The Wa, for instance, have a 30,000-strong army, occupy Northern Shan State and the Doi long area (former Khun Sa’s strong hold), and demand to set up their own state.

A common solution has to be found to the minorities issues. The Shan alone cannot solve the problem. We have to think how can we address it from a nationalist perspective, envisioning Burma as a united federal state or as united states, with freedom for Burma as the ultimate goal, and freedom for all ethnic nationality groups. I think that belief and trust are key for uniting all ethnic groups in Burma. Without belief and trust, our movement will not make progress. Unity is crucial, and the common fight for all ethnic nationalities,
including Burmans, will lead ultimate victory. The Shan alone cannot be free from the Burmese military rule. Excluding the Burmans as the majority group, mistrusting and hating them will not produce positive outcomes. It must be understood clearly and by everybody that under military rule all ethnic nationalities suffered. The Depeyin massacre, for instance, proves that Burmans were slaughtered by the military regime in the Burman ethnic area, not in Shan states or in Kachin states.

In the course of the reconciliation conference Eugene said: "In Shan State, we are the majority and Burmans are the minority". It seems our ethnic brothers do not like to be called "minority" because they form the majority in their own states. This being so, Burmans are one of the ethnic nationalities. Why does the ENSCC exclude the Burmans from their group? The answer is that the Burmans are the majority in the country called Burma, and Eugene does not want Burmans to be included in the ENSCC. If this is so, then those groups represented in the ENSCC become minority groups without knowing it.

The ENSCC’s Road Map has made good points: from one to six is necessity for the democratic process. The recognition and protection of the identity, language, religious and cultural rights of all nationalities is an urgent need of all. For example, many minority groups have fled from Burma to Thailand and become human exhibits in Thai tourist attraction sites, thus loosing their identity. Minorities have shamefully been denied the right to teach their own language in their home land. This must change.

The ENSCC’s basic second principle states that the resolution of political problems through political dialogue is the only way to achieve a peaceful transition to democracy. But political dialogue depends on international and internal pressure, without which the SPDC will not be moved to participate. The SPDC is unwilling to start a dialogue with the NLD - why should it be willing to start a tripartite dialogue with the NLD and ethnic nationalities? Why do they have to accept two teaming opposition groups by opening two war-fronts for them? They are not stupid. When Aung San Suu Kyi was freed from house arrest, the SPDC promised to the UN and the world community that they would start a dialogue with the NLD soon but months after months they failed to live up to their promise. Two years have passed without dialogue. Finally, ASSK’s trip was ambushed and the hope for dialogue buried together with the people murdered by the regime’s thugs.

Now SPDC is taking a tougher stance, detaining Aung San Suu Kyi (where in the past she was only put under house arrest) and not showing any sign of releasing her soon. In this situation, tripartite dialogue is not possible.

In his letter, the ENSCC’s secretary said that "pre-negotiation talks are needed in the transition to democracy as we have seen in South Africa and elsewhere". Poland and Hungary too followed the path of dialogue. In the South Africa case, the ANC alone was not able to achieve its goals; its armed wing led by militant leaders also played a major role in South Africa politics for change; the ANC’s history is well documented.

The ENSCC’s secretary said he believes in peaceful transition through peaceful dialogue. I want to see this too but people in power do not care about people who are weak. They will talk only when they see that their opponent matches theirs. The ENSCC’s chairman Saw Ba Thin is also a leading figure of the KNU, which has waged war against the regime for five decades. The Shan armed resistance group –SSA- is also a member of the ENSCC. Similarly, we want a peaceful solution but we support the ABSDF as our armed resistance group because we need a teeth. Everyone wants peace but if armed struggle is the only way to get there, we need to pursue armed struggle because we want peace.

Non-violent struggle was very successful in India under Gandhi’s leadership. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is using the same strategy towards Burma’s change into a democratic country. But we have to look at the actors involved in our struggle. Compared to the British imperialists, the tolerance level of the Burmese regime is zero. The British tolerated Gandhi’s opposition to some extent but the Burmese regime acted likewise. Furthermore, the British respected their constitution and the law and regulations that they had drawn up. On the contrary, the SPDC’s generals never respected their own laws. The ABSDF has declared that we will use any means to end the military dictatorship in Burma. The reason why we cannot achieve our goals yet is not because we are using a violent method. The reality is that we have not got enough trust, support and
cooperation from our ethnic nationalities.

Another part of the ENSCC’s secretary’s letter stated that "the political crisis in Burma today is not merely an ideological confrontation between democracy and dictatorship which can be solved through changing the government in Rangoon, but this is also a constitutional problem rooted in the question of the rights of self-determination for ethnic nationalities". This is indeed the biggest problem for our country.

Trying to solve these two problems, we need different approaches. We have to establish democracy in the country first. When we have a democratic government we have the right to organize, discuss what we want and the right to participate in the political process, we can then call together all ethnic nationalities’ leaders and discuss the right to self determination for ethnic minorities under democratic government and draw up an appropriate constitution for setting up a genuine federal union which might be called, for instance, the United States of Burma or the Federal Union of Burma.

In order to set up a democratic country, we need to stand behind Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and call, with one voice, for dialogue between the NLD and the SPDC with the help of international pressure. We cannot hit two birds with one stone. Tripartite dialogue at this point in time will not offer the solution. Instead it will complicate the situation, stall it and eventually backfire. Who will benefit from this? The SPDC regime will, because Ne Win used the ethnic issue as his tool to get rid of the democratic government and set up a military dictatorship in 1962. Now history is repeating itself. I care about all people living in Burma not only Burmans or Shans or Karens, no: all of them.

My question is why we cannot wait until we have democratic government. Why do we have to insist on addressing the ethnic issue under a repressive military regime rather than waiting to do so under a democratic one? Do the ethnic nationalities believe that demanding their rights under military rule is easier than under a democratic government? Let the NLD start a dialogue on its terms. Our duty is to stand behind Aung San Suu Kyi and call with one voice: "Release all political prisoners and start round table negotiations with 1990 winning party".

We already have the 1947 constitution, which guarantees democratic rights. With a few changes to this constitution, the NLD would be able to run the country without delay. This position was taken by U Kyi Maung in the Gandhi conference after the NLD’s landslide victory in 1990. It spells out a quick transition to democratic governance without delay. Once democratic governance is given all of us will discuss our demands and rights in the national congress. All ethnic leaders and representatives will discuss in the National Congress about a new and genuinely federal constitution in favourable conditions.

Let it now be concluded from my proposal that I seek to undermine the ethnic nationalities. I do NOT. When I was Chairman of All Burma Students’ Democratic Front, we believed that we would get rid of the military yoke by means of armed struggle. Why did we believe in armed struggle and why has this approach not led to achievement yet? We believed in armed struggle because:

1. The whole nation cried out for democracy by using non-violent means but our movement was squashed. Even though, the whole nation participated in the movement we lost the battle because we do not have an armed resistance group to protect us. That is the reason ABSDF was established.

2. The army outposts secretly contacted our bases, made a peace and requested that we let them know if we wanted to enter villages in which they were staying. They were willing to move out villages that we wanted to enter.

3. Many people inside Burma who had had military training and veterans were ready to join us once we were inside Burma and equipped with sufficient arms and ammunition.

Our armed struggle has not yet led to achievement because: When we successfully formed a Student Army, the whole country was waiting for us to enter Burma and get rid of the military regime. Rumours spread around the country that the KNU had three warehouses full of arms and ammunition to support the student army. This turned out to be false when we arrived in the KNU area. Students received military training hoping to go back and save our nation but we did not receive enough arms and ammunition from the armed resistance groups who hosted us.

We were waiting for months after months but we did not obtain sufficient arms and ammunition to start the offensive as we dreamt of. The only arms we had were old and had mechanical defects. One ethnic leader told me that "when you get democracy, you will return to Rangoon and enjoy freedom there but we will still be in the jungle fighting for our rights". His comment reflects the ENSCC secretary’s vision, according to which we can obtain democracy by changing a
dictatorship into a democratic government only in Rangoon. The ethnic groups’
right to self-determination will be left out.

This kind of statement shows that minority leaders and intellectuals mistrust ethnic Burmans. The ABSDF has had tremendous support from inside Burma but the minority resistance leaders did not allow ABSDF to move freely in their territory and inside Burma. They wanted to be informed of every movement made by the ABSDF. The ABSDF could not take military actions against the regime by occupying government outposts or starting an offensive inside Burma without the approval of ethnic resistance groups in their assigned area.

Minority leaders wanted to get rid of the military regime as soon as possible but they did not allow us to attempt it alone. They want us to work with them not as equal partners but under their control. This kind of mistrust and control weakens the student movement in the border regions. I have concrete evidence of this, some of which stems from my own experience as a student leader, and from front-line ABSDF leaders. Our hands are tied, and we cannot fight freely.

This is the stumbling block of the armed struggle. Similarly, on the political front the ethnic nationalities think that "Burmans will go home when they get rid of the military regime but we will be left behind". This is totally wrong. We witness the plight of our brothers and sisters and we love all ethnic races, rich or poor, black or brown. If we fight together for Burma, not only for Shans or Kachin or Chins, we will all obtain freedom and the rights that all the humans deserve in this world.

Let me clarify: I am not blaming our allies but merely pointing out the mistakes we made in the past and hope for us alleviating them together in the near future.

The one thing I fear most is false unity. It is easy to support the statement that "unity is essential for our cause" because this is true of necessity. But it is close to impossible to achieve unity if we do not know how to find common grounds. We need to know what we are doing and dare to take responsibility for it.

One of the crucial factors for maintaining democracy is existence of a strong civil society. Burma does not have a strong civil society because all class- and interest-based organizations such as the Labour Unions, the Young Monk Union, the Peasant Unions, the Students Union, the Lawyers committees, and other public bodies of this kind were abolished by successive military regimes. Furthermore, Burma has not had an independent media for more than four decades. Even we obtain democracy in Burma, we will under threat of loosing it soon because we do not have a strong civil society to protect individuals and class- and interest-base organizations.
My hope for the regime changing its mind and starting a dialogue with the NLD stand at a mere ten per cent. At this point in time we need to

1. Give a signal to the world that we are behind DASSK;

2. Support the armed resistance groups inside Burma;

3. Demand that the regime release all political prisoners;

4. Demand that the regime start a dialogue with NLD leader Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi;

5. Demand that the regime allow independent newspapers, television stations, and radio broadcasting stations in Burma. This last point is crucial for the people who have the right to know the truth. The emergence of the newspapers, TV stations and radio stations will inform the public about the current situation and about who is making good and who is not, who is honest and who is not, who is selfish and who is not. When they know the truth people can choose their leaders.

(Htun Aung Gyaw is a former Chairperson of the All Burma Students
Democratic Front and currently with Civil Society for Burma based in USA.)
***********************