an open letter II (r)

[nyeinchan@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear Ko Myint Swe,
    Yeah, we are not saying just money and we are saying all improper 
behaviours to be changed.  You are dead right.   Some outsider thinks 
that our struggle is in progress.  Actually, it is not.    I have no 
clue to say that our struggle is in progress.   We have to face the 
reality.    We should see the reality and only it will help us to be 
progressive.   
     We are on the border not to share the refugee rice from NGOs, not 
to fight each other (it is very different from debate) and not to waste 
our energy by getting malaria other tropical diseases.    We should be 
effective in a way to help people and to help the internal struggle.   
What we do now to help the people and the to help the internal struggle, 
is issuing statements and making undecisive meetings.   That is all we 
do.   On the other hand, there are lots of internal power struggle, 
injustice, fighting each other, and so on.   Every group on the border 
talks about other groups in a bad way behind their back.  But when they 
face eachother, they praise each other.  Mostly the leaders on the 
border do such insane.    
      I think all should review our real situation (on the border) by 
not satisfiying the success only but by facing the losses too and reform 
what all needed to do so.    Only serious self criticism will help us to 
be in a way to progress.    Speaking of self evaluation or criticism, I 
would like to point out that under BSPP regime, whenever they make 
evaluation, all were in progress and all were good and all were going on  
but in reality, the economy was in ruin, the country was collapsed and 
the people were in proverty.   I hope our revolution will not make such 
self criticism or evaluation.   We need to seriously face the reality.    
    Thank for your writing and I will never give up our attempt.   I 
really would like to see the effective opposition on the border since we 
can't go back home under this bloody regime.  However, if the opposition 
is effective on the border, that will make our spirit high.  
Thank
Nyein Chan 



>From notes@xxxxxxx Wed Jul 16 19:21:12 1997
>Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [192.82.108.1])
>	by igc7.igc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24002;
>	Wed, 16 Jul 1997 18:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: (from notes)
>	by cdp.igc.apc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA11642;
>	Wed, 16 Jul 1997 18:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: 16 Jul 1997 18:02:12
>Reply-To: Conference "reg.burma" <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: yu148683@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: an open letter II
>To: Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID: 
<Pine.GSO.3.95.970716120656.4092B-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>In-Reply-To: 
<Pine.GSO.3.95.970712201946.20718A-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-Gateway: conf2mail@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Errors-To: owner-burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Lines: 155
>
>From: MYINT SHWE <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
>> 
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com