[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
The New Era Journal (Burma)
************************Posted by BurmaNet************************
"Appropriate Information Technologies--Practical Strategies"
******************************************************************
The New Era Journal is a twelve-page newspaper published in Thailand and
smuggled over the border into Burma. New Era is a Burmese-language newspaper
but it also publishes a two-page English-language insert, containing some of
the stories also published in Burmese. This insert is reproduced here.
One measure of the New Era's effectiveness is that the penalty for being
caught with an issue in Burma is three years imprisonment.
-Strider
*******************************************************************
THE NEW ERA JOURNAL
APRIL 1994 NUMBER 25
Contents:
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT: PART GREED, PART FEAR
AUNG SAN ON UNITY AND THE MINORITIES
COVETING THEY NEIGHBOR'S DAMNS
NO SENSE WOOING BUFFALOES
MONKEY MASTERS AND POLITICAL POWER
Part three in a series by Dr. Gene Sharp
**********************************************************************
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT: PART GREED, PART FEAR
Accepting an invitation from Thailand, Burma's military regime
will be attending the ASEAN Conference in July to be held in
Bangkok. The invitation has been characterized as part of the "CONSTRUCTIVE
ENGAGEMENT" policy advocated by some Thai businessmen and adopted by the
current Thai government.
To the Burmese people who have been suffering terribly under the tyrannical
military clique in Rangoon, news of ASEAN's acceptance of the rulers in Burma
into their midst was most disappointing. On the surface, one could conclude
that ASEAN, especially Thailand, now endorses the actions of SLORC in
oppressing their own people. We should be very careful about jumping to such
a conclusion without considering the motives of these governments.
Governments, like individuals, often respond to two basic instincts: Greed
and Fear. Without question, SLORC has appealed to the instinct of greed by
offering friends and families of some government officials opportunities for
great wealth. Timber, oil, fishing and other concessions are being sold
cheaply for hard currency needed for arms purchases.
The Burma military forces are experienced and aggressive. Neighboring
countries have every reason to be concerned about a resurgence of Burmese
expansionism should the civil war in Burma be concluded in favor of SLORC.
Some governments perceive it to be in their interests to avoid a military
conflict at all costs. This is particularly true when their own large and
politically influential military establishment would likely suffer a
catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Burma Army.
As we attempt to understand why certain governments, having a long history of
neutrality regarding internal problems of neighbors and support for
democratic principles, suddenly appear to join forces with a regime so brutal
and anti-democratic as SLORC, we must consider the motives. It is not
necessarily true that these governments endorse the extra-judicial
executions, the genocide against ethnic minorities, the routine torture of
political dissidents or other human rights abuses. It may be merely greed
and fear being reflected in policy decisions.
*****************************************************************
AUNG SAN ON UNITY AND THE MINORITIES
The following is from a speech that U Aung San gave at a gathering of leaders
from the frontier areas on the 11th february, 1947, at Panglong in the Shan
state. The celebrated Panglong Agreement in which the frontier area peoples
decided to join the Union of Burma was signed the next morning:
I am the youngest delegate here even though my office gives me
precedence. The dream of a unified and free Burma has always haunted me
and these last ten years I have been actively pursuing it. We who are
gathered here tonight are engaged in the pursuit of the same dream.
There is this thing called 'racism' that I want to talk about. In the
past we shouted slogans: 'Our race, our religion, our language!' Those
slogans have gone obsolete now. What is race, after all. What are its
tests? We have in Burma many indigenous peoples; the Karens, the
Kachins, the Shans, the Chins, the Burmese and others. In other
countries too there are many indigenous peoples, many races. China,
Japan and the Soviet Union provide examples. In America, though the
peoples may speak a common language, they spring from many stocks; there
are the British, the Italians, and other peoples, but they have become
assimilated, and they identify themselves as ' American.'
Thus 'race' does not have rigid values.
Religion is no test either, for it is a matter of individual conscience.
In Burma the majority are Buddhists, but there are those who freely
accept Christianity, Islam, or animism.
During the war, when I served as War Minister, I had dinner at a Karen
battalion. A Karen soldier, speaking on unity, quipped that we were all
the same, Burmese and Karen, the only noticeable difference being that
the Burmese liked to play cards while the Karen enjoyed fishing in the
woods. We can preserve our own customs and cultures, enjoy our own
freedom of belief, but on the broader national life we must be together.
We must be one, We will have our differences, but, to take an example,
if we are threatened with external aggression, We must fight back
together with resolute will. The supreme commander of the armed forces
may be a Karen, a Kachin or a Chin, but we must all rise and fight under
his leadership.
If we want the nation to prosper, we must pool our resources, manpower,
wealth, skills, and work together. If we are divided, the Karens, the
Shans, the Kachins, the Chins, the Burmese, the Mons and the Arakanese,
each pulling in a different direction, the Union will be torn, and we
will all come to grief.
Let us unite and work together and see what we can accomplish together.
We will have to make sacrifices at first. Look at England. The English
people are having hard times; they have strict rationing of food and
clothing, for example. But they are in good cheer in the expectation of
brighter days for all. They are investing for the future.
With unity within our frontiers, we should next look beyond and
cooperate with our neighbors, such as Indonesia, India, Indo-china, and
other countries of the region. Only by sharing and working together can
we achieve the highest levels of life. We must all realize that in this
world no nation can stand aloof or alone. Nations must work together in
a universal commonwealth.
In passing, I wish to say that though we could not get on with the
British when the relation of the ruler and the ruled existed, we will be
good friends when the relation ends.
*****************************************************************************
COVETING THE NEIGHBOR'S DAMNS
Thailand has proposed building a series of damn's on the Salween River that
for a 150 kilometer stretch, marks the border between Burma and Thailand.
Critics note that only 6% of the water going into the Salween comes from the
watershed in Thailand and the rest comes from Burma. Worse, the damns are in
areas inhabited by ethnic Karens and Shans. Rangoon's motive, aside from a
bit of money it will generate for them, seems to be the road construction
into the areas that will be necessary for the construction of the damns. The
roads and the income from the damns will make it easier to control the areas.
Chronology of events leading up to proposals to build dams on the Salween
River which runs between the borders of Burma and Thailand.
1979
The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) initiates 14 projects
to divert water from the tributaries of the Kong and Salween international
rivers.
1985 The Japan
International Cooperation Agency presents their study of the Khun Yuam
Development Project to the National Committee on Energy. Included in the
study are 10 hydro-powered dam projects on the Yuam, Mae Rid and Ngao rivers.
1989, January
A committee responsible for the hydro-power dam projects on the Thai-Burmese
border is appointed by the Thai Cabinet. The committee will pursue the dam
projects on five rivers along the border.
1989, April
Representatives from the Thai Committee on the hydro-power dam projects on
the Thai-Burmese border discuss the projects with the Myanmar Electric Power
Enterprise. A joint committee is set up.
1989, July
Top officials of the National Committee on Energy visit Rangoon. The two
countries enter into an agreement of cooperation in water development
projects. A coordinating team is established with the National Myanmar
Electric Power Enterprise and the National Committee on Energy playing a key
role.
1990, August
The coordinating team meets for the second meeting in Bangkok. It agrees to
speed up the preliminary study of the remaining five dam projects.
1991
The coordinating team meets in Rangoon. It is agreed that the National
Committee on Energy will ask the EPDC of Japan to conduct the feasibility
study of the dam projects.
1991, May
The EPDC agrees to join the project by sending a survey team to Thailand.
1992, March
The EPDC completes the study and proposes eight dam projects along the
Thai-Burmese border.
1992, August
The Thai Cabinet gives approval to the plan to solve the water crisis in the
Chao Phraya River Basin which encompass the Salween Division Scheme.
1993, January
Egat reveals information about the seven dam projects under the Salween Water
Diversion Scheme to the press.
********************************************************************
NO SENSE WOOING BUFFALOES
(An editorial reprinted from the Bangkok Post)
After the 1998 uprising in Burma, it was sad that the Thai Ambassador to
Rangoon was summoned to the Burmese Foreign Ministry and berated by a
minister for something he had not done and had no control over - Thai press
reports of the Rangoon government's atrocities and persecution of its people
in the aftermath of the Slorc takeover.
When the ambassador entered the office of the Burmese minister, the latter
reportedly slammed a copy of one of Thailand's English-language dailies on
the table before the Thai envoy could take a seat, and demanded: "what's the
meaning of this? Why does your government allow the press in your country to
publish lies about us ? "
The Thai diplomat was stunned by such behavior coming from a highranking
official: He had not even had time to calmly reply that there is such a
thing as freedom of the press in his country. It seems, however, the words of
a Thai diplomat hold no water in a country where the word freedom is rivalled
by its powerful nemesis - imprisonment.
Now we hear that the Thai Foreign Ministry has invited Burmese Information
Minister Myo Thant to Bangkok on Wednesday to explain the Government's policy
on a free and liberal press .
The invitation is aimed at erasing Rangoon's doubts that the Government
supports press criticism of the State Law and Order Restoration Council,
according to sources in the Interior Ministry. The sources added that the
visit will provide Brig-Gen Myo Thant the opportunity to see that the Thai
press has the freedom to express its opinion without Government control.
How the Government is going to do this, we do not know, but one thing we do
know is that it will be a waste of the Thai Government's time, money and
energy to expect a non-believer in basic human rights to understand what
freedom of speech means.
As members of the press, we strongly object to the Government's plants to
display us like freaks in a sideshow to the Burmese military, while at the
same time pursuing a policy of "constructive engagement" with the so-called
Burmese government, which has been shunned by most of the international
community. We do not believe in the staging of a Richardson-Suu Kyi-like
circus to try to fool the word into thinking that authoritarianism does not
exist in Burma. when in fact it does. In short: Don't use the press like Khin
Nyunt does, for his own selfish reasons.
If freedom of press does exist in this country, as the Government claims,
then there is no reason to shout it for the rest of the world to hear,
especially Burma, which is calling itself Myanmar and has changed its flag
without the consent of its people.
The Thai press knows how much freedom it has and where to draw the line when
reporting on events that affect national security or when criticising a
high-ranking government or military official. This is called responsible
journalism or self-censorship, depending on how one looks at it. It is said
that the press in Thailand is the most free of all those in the Asean
countries. We praise the Government for showing such a high degree of
tolerance for the fourth estate.
The Rangoon government already knows the thai press has the freedom to air
its opinions, if and when it sees fit, without government control, even when
criticising Burma or other countries. This paper has even assailed Foreign
Minister Prasong Soonsiri's decision to invite Rangoon to attend the Asean
conference in July as guest of the host country.
The generals in Burma also know that the press in Thailand has a voice of its
own because it refuses to address that country as Myanmar and its capital as
Yangon, despite the acquiescence of this Government and the United Nations.
The Bangkok Post and The Nation have turned down repeated requests by the
Burmese Embassy on Pan Road to stop calling its country Burma. We choose not
to comply with their request because doing so would mean recognising an
illegitimate government. As one prominent thai editor put it: "Burma remains
Burma until the Burmese people decide for themselves after elections whether
the name of their country should be changed."
So if this Government is to invite the Burmese Information Minister here just
to prove that there is a free press in this country, then it is wasting its
time. It's plain stupidity to cast pearls before swine, or as the Burmese
themselves say, to woo a buffalo with the melodious sounds of the harp.
Instead, we suggest that the invitation be extended to the silenced members
of the Slorc-controlled media. They would appreciate the chance to see for
themselves how their counter-parts in Thailand practice journalism in a free
society without interference or intimidation from the powers that be.
********************************************************************
MONKEY MASTERS AND POLITICAL POWER
Part three in a series by Dr. Gene Sharp
EDITOR'S NOTE: This the third of a special series of articles by Gene Sharp
on the general problems and possibilities of achieving liberation from
dictatorships being published in Khit Pyiang in ten installments, initially
in English and later in Burmese.
___________________________________________________________
Achieving freedom with peace is of course no simple task. It will require
great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all, it will
require power. Democrats cannot hope to bring down a dictatorship and
establish political freedom without the ability to apply their own power
effectively.
But how is this possible? What kind of power can the democratic opposition
mobilize that will be sufficient to destroy the dictatorship and its vast
military and police networks? The answers lie in an oft ignored
understanding of political power. Learning this insight is not really so
difficult a task. Some basic truths are quite simple.
The "Monkey Master" fable
A Fourteenth Century Chinese parable by Liu-Ji, for example, outlines this
neglected understanding of political power quite well:
In the feudal state of Chu an old man survived by keeping monkeys in his
service. The people of Chu called him "ju gong" (monkey master).
Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys in his courtyard,
and order the eldest one to lead the others to the mountains to gather
fruits from bushes and trees. It was the rule that each monkey had to
give one tenth of his collection to the old man. Those who failed to do
so would be ruthlessly flogged. All the monkeys suffered bitterly, but
dared not complain.
One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys: "Did the old man
plant all the fruit trees and bushes?" The others said: "No, they grew
naturally." The small monkey further asked: "Can't we take the fruits
without the old man's permission?" The others replied: "Yes, we all
can." The small monkey continued: "Then, why should we depend on the
old man; why must we all serve him?"
Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement, all the
monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.
On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen asleep, the
monkeys tore down all the barricades of the stockade in which they
were confined, and destroyed the stockade entirely. They also took the
fruits the old man had in storage, brought all with them to the woods,
and never returned. The old man finally died of starvation.
Yu-li-zi says, "Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by
righteous principles. Aren't they just like the monkey master? They are not
aware of their muddleheadedness. As soon as their people become enlightened,
their tricks no longer work."
Necessary sources of political power
The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of the people they
rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the sources of political
power. These sources of political power include:
* Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate,
and that they have a moral duty to obey it;
* Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups
which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers;
* Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions
and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;
* Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors which may
induce people to obey and assist the rulers;
* Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have
access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic
system, and means of communication and transportation; and
* Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient
and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation
which are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies.
All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on the
submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of
innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not
guaranteed.
Full cooperation, obedience, and support will increase the availability of
the needed sources of power and, consequently expand the power capacity of
any government.
On the other hand, withdrawal of popular and institutional cooperation with
aggressors and dictators diminishes, and may sever, the availability of the
sources of power on which all rulers depend. Without availability of those
sources, the rulers' power weakens and finally dissolves.
Naturally, dictators are sensitive to actions and ideas that threaten their
capacity to do as they like. Dictators are therefore likely to threaten and
punish those who disobey, strike, or fail to cooperate. However, that is not
the end of the story. Repression, even brutalities, do not always produce a
resumption of the necessary degree of submission and cooperation for the
regime to function.
If, despite repression, the sources of power can be restricted or severed for
enough time, the initial results may be uncertainty and confusion within the
dictatorship. That is likely to be followed by a clear weakening of the
power of the dictatorship. Over time, the withholding of the sources of
power can produce the paralysis and impotence of the regime, and in severe
cases, its disintegration. The dictators' power will die, slowly or rapidly,
from political starvation.
The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in large
degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to be free
and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them.
Contrary to popular opinion, even totalitarian dictatorships are dependent on
the population and the societies they rule. As the political scientist Karl
W. Deutsch noted in 1953:
Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often.
If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire
population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian
regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do other
types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and
dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to
be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the
population in case of need.
The English Nineteenth Century legal theorist John Austin described the
situation of a dictatorship confronting a disaffected people. Austin argued
that if most of the population were determined to destroy the government and
were willing to endure repression to do so, then the might of the government,
including those who supported it, could not preserve the hated government,
even if it received foreign assistance. The defiant people could not be
forced back into permanent obedience and subjection, Austin concluded.
Niccolo Machiavelli had much earlier argued that the prince ". . . who has
the public as a whole for his enemy can never make himself secure; and the
greater his cruelty, the weaker does his regime become."
The practical political application of these insights was demonstrated by the
heroic Norwegian resisters against the Nazi occupation, and as cited in
Chapter One, by the brave Poles, Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, and many others
who resisted Communist aggression and dictatorship, and finally helped
produce the collapse of Communist rule in Europe. This, of course, is no new
phenomenon: cases of nonviolent resistance go back at least to 494 B.C. when
plebeians withdrew cooperation from their Roman patrician masters.
Nonviolent struggle has been employed at various times by peoples throughout
Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australasia, and the Pacific islands, as well as
Europe.
Three of the most important factors in determining to what degree a
government's power will be controlled or uncontrolled therefore are: (1) the
relative desire of the populace to impose limits on the government's power;
(2) the relative strength of the subjects' independent organizations and
institutions to withdraw collectively the sources of power; and (3) the
population's relative ability to withhold their consent and assistance.
Centers of democratic power
One characteristic of a democratic society is that there exist independent of
the state a multitude of nongovernmental groups and institutions. These
include, for example, families, religious organizations, cultural
associations, sports clubs, economic institutions, trade unions, student
associations, political parties, villages, neighborhood associations,
gardening clubs, human rights organizations, musical groups, literary
societies, and others. These bodies are important in serving their own
objectives and also in helping to meet social needs.
Additionally, these bodies have great political significance. They provide
group and institutional bases by which people can exert influence over the
direction of their society and resist other groups or the government when
they are seen to impinge unjustly on their interests, activities, or
purposes. Isolated individuals, not members of such groups, usually are
unable to make a significant impact on the rest of the society, much less a
government, and certainly not a dictatorship.
Consequently, if the autonomy and freedom of such bodies can be taken away by
the dictators, the population will be relatively helpless. Also, if these
institutions can themselves be dictatorially controlled by the central regime
or replaced by new controlled ones, they can be used to dominate both the
individual members and also those areas of the society.
However, if the autonomy and freedom of these independent civil institutions
(outside of government control) can be maintained or regained they are highly
important for the application of political defiance. The common feature of
the cited examples in which dictatorships have been disintegrated or weakened
has been the courageous mass application of political defiance by the
population and its institutions.
As stated, these centers of power provide the institutional bases from which
the population can exert pressure or can resist dictatorial controls. In the
future, they will be part of the indispensable structural base for a free
society. Their continued independence and growth therefore is often a
prerequisite for the success of the liberation struggle.
If the dictatorship has been largely successful in destroying or controlling
the society's independent bodies, it will be important for the resisters to
create new independent social groups and institutions, or to reassert
democratic control over surviving or partially controlled bodies. During the
Hungarian Revolution of 1956-1957 a multitude of direct democracy councils
emerged, even joining together to establish for some weeks a whole federated
system of institutions and governance. In Poland during the late 1980s
workers maintained illegal Solidarity unions and, in some cases, took over
control of the official, Communist dominated, trade unions. Such
institutional developments can have very important political consequences.
Of course, none of this means that weakening and destroying dictatorships is
easy, nor that every attempt will succeed. It certainly does not mean that
the struggle will be free of casualties, for those still serving the
dictators are likely to fight back in an effort to force the populace to
resume cooperation and obedience.
The above insight into power does mean, however, that the deliberate
disintegration of dictatorships is possible. Dictatorships in particular
have specific characteristics that render them highly vulnerable to
skillfully implemented political defiance. Let us examine these
characteristics in more detail.
Chapter Four of this series will be published in the next issue of Khit
Pyiang (New Era).
c copyright by Gene Sharp, 1993. All rights reserved including translation
rights. All requests should be addressed in writing to Gene Sharp, Albert
Einstein Institution, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138, USA, FAX USA + 617-876-7954. They will be sympathetically considered.
Reproductions of the individual articles, as by photocopying, by Burmese
democrats are permitted provided the author is notified. In order to ensure
the quality of translations and to avoid duplication of work, these articles
should not be translated without written permission.
This story, originally titled "Rule by Tricks" from Yu-li-zi written by Liu
Ji (1311-1375), has been translated by Sidney Tai, all rights reserved.
Yu-li-zi is also the pseudonym for Liu Ji. The translation was originally
published in Nonviolent Sanctions: News from the Albert Einstein Institution
(Cambridge, Mass.), Vol. IV, No. 3 (Winter 1992-1993), p. 3.
Karl W. Deutsch, "Cracks in the Monolith," in Carl J. Friedrich, ed.,
Totalitarianism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), pp.
313-314.
John Austin, Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of Positive Law
(Fifth edition, revised and edited by Robert Campbell, 2 volumes). London:
John Murray, 1911 [1861], Vol. I, p. 296.
Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy," in The
Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950),
vol. I, p. 254.
See Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent,
1973), p. 75 and passim for other historical examples.