an open letter II (r)

[yu148683@xxxxxxxx]

 A Repely to Larry from Myint Shwe 

On 15 Jul 1997 dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> From: "W. Kesavatana-Dohrs" <dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This has been a thoughtful and useful airing of grievences and opinions.
> However, it seems to me that the key issue is not being examined.
  
>>>  Your stinging induced me to write on in this debate while I thought
     it is enough. 
> 
  If you think according to your letter, the key issue to be examined in
  this argument is money, you are pathetically wrong. I talked about
  freedom of expression and the importance of self criticism. Neither
  money nor lack of multituide of supporters was a key issue to our
  struggle. The key issue is the leadership problem. During the 8888, we
  can say definitely, almost the whole country had been supprters for
  democracy. Next, Burma as a country may be poor. but there always has
  been a great many wealthy and able, I mean Burmese nationals at home and
  abroad, people who wanted to support and did supported the struggle
  financially. If you were in Burma during those turbulent days, I would
  not be needed to explain this in length. But we lacked a dare and
  square leadership at the national level to challenge Ne Win's parsonal
  statue. We all know that the democratic leadership was uprooted and
  outlived by the long reign of BSPP dictatorship. Finally we have found
  it in the person of DASSK and NLD as a political alternative leadership 
  to SLORC. But, let me say, due to hardships imposed by SLORC and by own
  lack of calibre, this leadership did not bring democracy for Burma up to
  now. In fact, the movement has been suffering a lot due to the policy
  errors and personal shortcomings. Now we are trying to correct this in
  order to save the revolution ended in total defeat.   
  

  The fact is that the Burma Democracy movement, in all its forms, has
> accomplished a great deal, especially in the international arena, on an
> absolute shoe-string.  
  
  I don't understand how could you say that. Can you call the following
  fiascoes as accomplishments. Let's face the reality,( This is the
  typical simptom of an internet hero who always lack a sense of street
  realty. The number of suffering people in Burma has increased from 40
  millions to 48 millions in these nine years. It means SLORC has gained 8
  million more slaves during these years while you are day dreaming of the 
  so-called achivements.)  Here are these;
  
  1. The opposition's strong hold, Manerplaw, and all other major base
     areas has been fallen to the enemy one after another in two years. 
  2. NCGUB leadership has been driven farther away from Burma. They were
     not allowed to return to Thailand. All the remaining known acivists
     were forced to moved up to Chaingmai and lesser known places from BKK
     where they have more access to international community. 
  3. All unbrella organizations of the opposition side, DAB,NCUB, NDF,
     ADNSC,DFB etc became ghost organizations after the desertion of all
     but one, ethnic groups to the enemy side. ( If you accuses it solely 
     because of the enemy's thrust, I would not argue with you on this
     point since it is not necessary.       
 4.  The most deploarable suffer, at least it seems to me, is that the
     banner barer of the 8888 uprising, the students, ABSDF, HAS BEEN
     DIVIDED into three groups, Moethee, Naingaung and the neutrals.
     Today we all realized that it has been a irreprable damage to the
     student unity, to the revolution. Though they reconciliate lately, it
     would never be the same as before. If someone think that it has
     happened due to their own internal fight for leadership not without
     outside interferences from DAB, NCGUB and, ofcourse, from SLORC, THIS
     PERSON IS A NIAVE. )   
 5.  The West's attempt to bar Burma's integration into ASEAN has been
     still nowhere near the success. Because the West has no clear sense
     of distinction between state, society and the government of the day
     in Burma. In fact Clinton Administration's unilateral sanction
     has contriuted SLORC's status fortified in the region, a boomerang
     effect to our side. 
 6.  In the international arena, governments denounce SLORC the human
     rights criminal. But all these governments have diplomatoic relations
     with SLROC not with NCGUB, a legitimate government by virtue of
     the 1990 election. These governments, as you correctly mentioned, grant
     neglible moneies to activist bodies and try to steer the course of
     the struggle to their liking, or influence the policy framups
     using misinterpreated, incomplete informations they gathered from
     their trusted people only. 
 
     There are some more but I will stop here.

The emphasis should not be on squabbling over who
> gets the crumbs of the pie, but on increasing the size of the pie that all
> must share.  Remember, the sum total of all the funds provided to the
> support of freedom and democracy in Burma amounts to a small fraction of
> the money invested in a single project, such as the SLORC/Unocal/Total/PTT
> pipeline.
> 
  
> We must ask, who has an interest in the development of democracy in Burma?
> 
  Sorry, I don't know. But I do know that the people who do not want
  democracy in Burma. They are of two categories, namely,
 
 1. Dictators and their likes who do not believe in the idea of democracy
    both in principal and practice.
 2. People who thrives during the long struggle. For them the longer the
    struggle, the better. They might even want DASSK awareded by a second
    Nobel Prize or re arrested by SLORC INSIDE BURMA so that they can
    thrive more here in the West, making names, making themselves heroes
    by calling SLORC a slorc from a safe distance, and call other spiess
    who try to hlep correct them. In this category are also included some
    quacks who wear the costume of Burma experts, the self appointed
    Gurus, and afew professionals who earn their livings by hiding in
    various NGOs.        

1) The people of Taiwan, whose own bold experiment with democracy is a
> challenge to the Beijing regime.
> 2) Those in Hong Kong who wish to preserve an environment of openness in
> Asia and in their own city.
> 3) All Thais with the exception of the most greedy and selfish.
> Thailand's interests are much better served by political pluralism in
> Burma than by an unaccountable, violent military dictatorship, whose
> dishonesty and arrogance is always on display along the Thai-Burma border.
> 
4) Anyone with the foresight to see the value of open societies in an
> ascendant Asia.  Conflict resolution between open societies has less
> chance of being violent.  Justice and equal opportunities are greater
> where there is rule of law. Stability is enhanced where corruption can be
  exposed rather than left to fester unseen.
> 
   This is just a balderdesh!

5) All those working for justice in China, Indonesia and Vietnam.  How can
> they hope to press for change, if change can not be brought about in
> Burma, where the people have spoken both in the streets and at the ballot
> box?  The most obvious example must be dealt with first, and that is
> Burma.
> 
> Lots of people, including many with the resources to help this movement,
> have an interest in democratic development in Burma.  How valuable it
> would be if we could all commit to reaching out to those people?  

>>> Thank you for your persuasion. However what we need most is not money
    from benfactors, but a correct leadership from our own chosen people.

 Let's not end up as slum-dwellers fighting over scraps.
> 
 This is just an irrelevant, open insult upon the participants of this
 debate. This has been made out of, I believe, a Yankee's big bother
 mentality,looking down Burmese student activists, who has the gut of 
 criticisizing his trusted pet associates. 

Anyway, I appreciate your participation in this discussion. 

Myint Shwe/Toronto

 Larry Dohrs
> Seattle
>