(Part III) Hitting Below the Belt -

[brelief@xxxxxxx]

Hitting Below the Belt  (Part III)
Principle Tactics of SLORC
by Ven. Khaymar Sarra
All Burma Young Monks' Union

"NOWHERE IN THE WORLD HAS ANYONE HEARD OF DAW SUU URGING FOR PEACE;

DAW SW HAS NEVER EVER VENTURED TO ACHIEVE PEACE FOR HUMANITY;

SHE HAS NEVER EVER WRITTEN EVEN A LETTER CONCERNING PEACE."

When Daw Aung San Suu Kyi arrived at Myitkyina in the Kachin State, she said
in her speech, "We will establish this union after acquiring the
satisfaction of the indigenous nationalities. For the establishment, we will
have to write a new constitutional law. We have already accepted the idea
that in doing this, we must consult with the indigenous nationalities." In
discussions with the parties of the indigenous nationalities, she said, "In
consideration of a union, we take the position of the indigenous
nationalities as a basis. This, at the same time, is related to peace in the
country. With regard to internal peace, our league has already declared it
must be achieved through political means. We will not try to achieve peace
by the means of arms." This was said at the meeting of NLD and the Union
National League for Democracy (UNLD). It was understood that she was
explaining about the position of NLD with regard to peace in the Union. As
assumed by Daw Suu, the question of indigenous nationalities is not an
insignificant matter, and it can cause the disintegration of the Union of
Burma at any time.

We can see that this is very different from the analysis of the SLORC. Using
such phrases as, "Do not flatter the nationalities much. They will ride
astride your neck," "Terrorists, destructionists?we will annihilate them
within five years," "Might is right, sword against sword, spear against
spear," the SLORC has spoken acrimoniously of the nationalities. Apparently,
the SLORC have forgotten the fact that the independence of Burma was
deferred because of the protest lodged by the nationalities, and only after
the nationalities had agreed by signing the Panglong Agreement was
independence gained speedily. Due to such attitudes, the civil war has
intensified progressively after 1962.

Just as Daw Suu has assumed, the question of the nationalities is not a
trivial matter but a very profound problem. No one should overlook the fact
that on May 10, 1976, the nationalities successfully formed an alliance of
resistance forces known as the National Democratic Front (NDF), in response
to greater oppression. The NDF has become an important force in the
political and military fields of the nationalities. The NDF and other
nationalities have armed forces consisting of around 160,000 men. They have
established their own autonomous areas covering a significant area of Burma
and they have been exercising authority independently in the military,
political, economic and legislative matters.

The main demands of the nationalities are self-determination and equality.
Just as the SLORC troops have penetrated into the autonomous area of the
nationalities, from time to time, the troops of the nationalities have
penetrated into the SLORC-controlled towns. Both sides use modern weapons of
heavy as well as light calibre. From the latest analyses of some observers,
it is known that the SLORC uses chemical warfare (It is also suspected that
the SLORC army has used bacteriological warfare, however this has been only
partially substantiated), when the situation permits, in addition to its
air-force and navy.

(Photo: An ethnic soldier wounded by the SLORC's chemical weapons.)

The civil war in Burma has been in existence for nearly 50 years. It is
famous as one of the longest running wars in the world. Many troops on both
sides have lost their lives. An uncountable number of civilians have lost
their lives and property. Worst is the use of the civilians by the military
dictatorship as 'porters' to carry supplies, as human mine-detectors, and as
runners in the front-line. Even women are used as porters and minesweepers
in the front-line.

Researchers have estimated that not less than three million civilians, in
mass exodus, have fled and taken refuge in neighboring countries such as
Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand, because of civil war with the
ethnic groups. As the military dictatorship has had to use a large share of
the country's budget on the civil war, destroying the unity and
impoverishing the people, the country has become one of the poorest in the
world.

Since 1988, it can be seen that the policy of SLORC towards the ethnic
nationalities changed. The reason for the change is that Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi and the nationalities reached some agreement, and the nationalities
showed more trust in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. There has also been a greater
union between the armed organizations of the nationalities and the political
parties at home. Since 1989, the very apprehensive SLORC have attempted to
end the civil war as quickly as possible by negotiating with armed
organizations of the nationalities, individually. However, up to this day,
the SLORC have not negotiated politically with any of the organizations of
the nationalities. Though such negotiations may enable the SLORC to prolong
their existence and gain political benefits, the country will still not be
headed for genuine peace.

Cease-fires agreements signed between the SLORC and the nationalities
organizations have allowed the ethnic groups:

Retention of their armed forces
Relative administrative autonomy 
Legislative power 
Power to levy taxes
Limited business opportunity and activity, and aid for regional development,

(Photo: Ashin Kumooda, a Buddhist monk forced to be a porter. In the civil
war, even the Buddhist monks are being forced by the SLORC to be porters.)

In some cases, it is said that funds have been provided for regional
development. However, as the military dictatorship SLORC have quickly tried
to cause dissension, applying various kinds of pressure and violating the
cease-fire terms, and as there are still no political agreements, experts
forecast that these ceasefire agreements are bound to break down sooner or
later.

As the SLORC resort to such half-measures in their attempts to find a way of
escape, the areas administered by the nationalities remain neither
independent states nor parts of the area administered by the SLORC, and it
may be said that Burma now has one of the most absurd state structures in
the world. By way of additional explanation, it would be more appropriate to
say that Burma is a state where seventeen different governments are sharing
administration of the land area.

In order to save the situation, Daw Suu has made her declaration concerning
the nationalities as mentioned previously. For this reason, Daw Suu is
better trusted, and it is hoped that peace can be achieved.

(Photo:  A young girl forced to be a porter in the civil war)

"We will not secede. We do not want to secede. Act in a way so as to make us
not secede. Hold talks with us, not only on military matters but on
political matters also. We want to sit in a tri-partite political dialogue
between the leaders of the nationalities, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the
SLORC. Let us have it."

Words such as these have been emphatically declaimed by leaders of the
nationalities. This is very encouraging in relation to the establishment of
a peaceful state of Burma as envisaged by Daw Suu. During the 1988 movement,
while on a short visit at Daw Suu's house, I heard the following words,
spoken unexpectedly by Daw Suu: "We must enable the nationalities who are
still not developed to become developed, not make war on them." These words
were repeated by Daw Suu in her speeches made at the Shwe Dagon mass meeting
held on August 26, 1988, and at the meeting with 550 delegates from all over
the country, held about seven days before the military seized power. It is
hoped this much would give an idea of the intensity of Daw Suu's wish to put
out the fire of civil war that has been burning for nearly fifty years, and
establish peace.

The spirit of peace could be distinctly seen in Daw Suu during the 1988
movement for human rights and democracy. She would tirelessly urge the
people to resort to peaceful means. During the 1988 movement, seven days
before the military seized power, a very important incident took place. If
there were no leader like Daw Suu who had won the trust of the people, there
would have been no pretext for the entity known as SLORC to have come into
being.

In the above paragraph, I use the words "a very important incident." With
regard to this, some elaboration is in order. It will soon become evident
how much Daw Suu's role had been vital and how great her spirit of peace and
influence have been. As the 8-8-88 movement dragged on, complacency crept
in. There was fear that the movement would fade away without any result. The
effort to form an interim government had failed, and most people had arrived
at the conclusion that democracy, human rights, and peace could not be
gained just by streets protests and workers' strikes. Belief in the
leadership, which could not be united, had become weak.

At the time, a youth leader confided in me on one of his regular visits:
"Ashin Paya, we can no longer continue like this. We know the elders would
not agree with us; but we must resort to an armed struggle. Please do not
tell any of the elders about this. The military has attempted to seize power
four times already. The longer the situation goes on like this, it will be
like deliberately allowing the military opportunity to take advantage."

I did not express any opinion regarding this matter. It would have been
impossible to reason with the frustrated youth. I myself was acutely aware
of the prevailing feeling of stagnation. I did not wish to oppose the will
of the elders either. Nonetheless, if the elders gradually gave in to the
military, it could become increasingly difficult to continue on the
struggle. The 'elders', in this case, were Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, U Tin Oo, U
Aung Gyi and U Nu, whom the people respected.

While I did admonish the youth organizers to refrain from completely
contradicting the will of the elders, I urged them to keep me informed
regularly on all their clandestine planning. Hence I came to be very much
aware of the students' underground activities.  (Disclaimer:  For security
reasons, I cannot disclose the names of the student leaders involved in
these activities.)

Two strategic areas of Rangoon were chosen as bases areas for activities.
More than 300 youths, who had had military training and with whom I had
constantly maintained contact, were posted in the area. They were
amalgamated with a group of approximately 900 local youths. The medicine and
Red Cross units necessary for the operation were also acquired. The effort
to acquire their own broadcast station was nearing success. When
preparations were roughly finished in various areas, the slogan was changed
from, "Our Bogyoke" told us to combat, if our demand is not met," to
"Combat?whether our demand is met or not."
(Bogyoke literally means "general" in Burmese.  Here, it was used to refer
to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's father and the father of Burma's independence, who
attained the rank during World War 2 when he was commander in chief of the
Burmese Patriotic Forces.  General Aung San was affectionately referred to
as "Our General" by people all over Burma.)

At that time, if force had been used without procrastination, victory might
have been achieved. Initial losses might not have been severe, because by
August 23, 1988, the soldiers, police and the riot police had disappeared.
Some came to join and take refuge in the crowd, acting as if past events had
nothing to do with them. Virtually the whole of Rangoon was under the
influence of the students and monks.

It was difficult for me to say definitely whether Daw Suu was aware of this
situation or not. Daw Suu seemed to me to be concerned. More than before,
Daw Suu was urging non-violence. Daw Suu was also counselling that it would
be appropriate for prominent abbots to appeal to and lecture the masses on
the radio not to resort to violence. Young monks were also appealed to for
help in controlling the masses. Day by day, the people had become
increasingly suspicious of the military clique's propaganda promising to
allow the formation of political parties and to work for the achievement of
democracy and human rights. All the military clique had done was consolidate
its power, and it had never been known for honouring its promises. As the
people believed that now also the military clique was not going to fulfill
its promises, they had become more and more inclined to resort to violence
rather than continuing their reliance on peaceful means.

A few days before the coup-d'etat on the 18th of September 1988, a meeting
was held with the elder leaders. The meeting was attended by Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, U Tin Oo, U Aung Gyi and 550 delegates from all over the country. I
was sitting with two other young monks in a position diagonally in front of
the elder leaders. The issue raised by the various delegates was, "A
coup-d'etat is going to take place soon. Therefore, we would like to know
what we should do. We will do whatever is necessary." Almost all the
delegates were deeply concerned.

Daw Suu was the first to stand up to discuss the question. As usual, she
appealed for non-violence. "Saying that my father had commanded it, people
are shouting in the streets, if you don't get what you want, smash. My
father did not instruct us like that. My father would not want the killing
of Burmese by Burmese," she concluded.

The delegates became quiet because of these words by Daw Suu. Other leaders
also discussed. It was a short meeting. About at the same time as this
meeting, a local meeting of an area took place at a high school where
thousands attended. I explained that, "All actions should not deviate too
much from the position of the elders, and becoming too over-excited could
cause victory to elude us." Thus, a compromise between the elders and the
youths was attempted. The truth was that I was much encouraged by the
participation of Daw Suu, and there was a wish to prevent chaos.

However, the organizers and the youth forces did not fold up their
operation, but rather continued waiting and watching the steps of the
military. At that time a military officer came to see them. He discussed
matters for only about five minutes and left quickly.

"Use us in any place that your Holiness wants," were his last words and he
left his phone number and home address for me to contact him. I know now who
that officer was; there were many others like him from the army, navy and
the air force who secretly offered their services to the opposition forces.

At that time, I gave deep consideration to the following:

(a) The military's plan to seize power was known in advance;
(b) Overtures were made by some military officers;
(c) The students were very close to embarking on armed struggle.

I muse sometimes that possibly by following a different strategy, losses
would have been minimised. Since I am a Buddhist monk, and also because the
'elders' (i.e. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, U Tin Oo and U Aung Gyi) have strongly
urged against resorting to violent means, we advocated waiting, hesitating
and postponing plans. In the end, our movement was brutally crushed by the
military clique.

For that reason, given the experiences related above, if the path of
non-violence had not been followed, the SLORC might not even exist today. In
short, it may almost appear as if Daw Suu inadvertently saved the SLORC from
being overthrown and annihilated. The SLORC members make a point of showing
themselves on TV, serving as pall bearers at the funerals of ranking abbots,
and white-washing or repairing decayed pilgrimage resthouses and pagodas.
Nevertheless, it cannot be assumed that they love and cherish the Buddhist
Order or that they have acquired religious cognizance and uprightness.
"Kata-nyuta, kata-way-di" (literally, "To show your gratitude to your
benefactors is a good way of living') in the teachings of Buddha, is the
instruction to believers to appreciate a good turn done by another, which is
a valuable precept. I would like to urge the SLORC to request, in the way of
abiding by that precept, the Nobel Prize Committee of Norway to award one
more Nobel Peace Prize to Daw Aung Suu Kyi. Otherwise, the SLORC would be no
better than the still, stone lion figures which guard the steps of our
pagodas, having not the least idea why they have been placed there.

To conclude:

Daw Suu has been endeavoring for peace in Burma, appealing to the world
community for help. Courageous and selfless, she is working to promote peace
among all humanity. She has not the time to even respond to a letter. She is
too personally consumed with the struggle in the cause for peace.


MICHAEL ARES, "A TIBETAN, A JEW"

One day during the movement's activities, in the large guest room of Daw
Suu's house, I was enjoying a wine-colored drink in a tall glass presented
by a donor. After presenting the offering of the glass of juice, the man
just smiled without a word, raised his cupped palms together in obeisance in
the Buddhist way, and retreated by stepping backward to the place where he
had been sitting.

While drinking the beverage, I was observing and thinking. The man who
presented me with the drink had European features. Yet from the way he
acted, he could have been a Buddhist. I presumed him to be a Buddhist,
because in the way he related to me, a monk; he paid respect in accordance
with the Buddhist culture practiced by the Burmese and paid me every
respect. I had never seen a European Buddhist in Burma and was surprised and
delighted.

He did not say a word in the discussion, sitting at a distance, but it
appeared that he took interest in what I and the others were discussing. I
met Michael Aris just this once, and I have never seen him again since.

Before and in the early days of the 1988 movement, few people knew of Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi. Only after August 16 did she become suddenly famous. That
is why Daw Suu's husband was even less well-known than Daw Suu. It was only
after 1988 that the people of Burma came to know more about him. The truth
is that, though Michael Aris was seen at Daw Suu's house, nothing definite
was known of him, apart from the speculation that he was Daw Suu's husband.
In time, the people of Burma came to know about Michael Aris and his
personal history, in detail, during the period of the election campaign
prior to the 1990 general election. The people of Burma came to know more
and more about Michael Aris as the SLORC was launching extensively a
campaign of slander against him.

In fact, Michael Aris is: 

Daw Suu's husband;
An Englishman; 
A Buddhist;
A person who can speak the Pali language; 
A Western academic.

Though the people of Burma knew these truths about Daw Suu and Michael Aris,
I do not think that they in any way adversely affected Daw Suu's leadership,
and her work for the achievement of human rights, democracy and peace in
Burma. The members of the Sangha, students, youth, as well as people from
all walks of life, continued to come and see her, both for advice and to
support her. It may be said that the result of the 1990 election was an
eminent testimony to this fact.

It is known that the delegates of the SLORC's National Convention, which
began on January 9, 1993, debated and adopted principles concerning the head
of state that would bar Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming the president.
(The articles mentioned proscribe any Burmese married to a foreigner from
holding presidential office).  Had the delegates done the same in 1975-76,
there was a possibility that they might have been sentenced to death,
because at that time U Ne Win himself took a foreigner as his wife. The
high-ranking officers of the military who regarded themselves as the
saviours of the country, far from making a critical comment about this
marriage, blessed and praised it. Whatever U Ne Win did was correct.

At that time, a writer by the name of Maung Pe Nge dared to write in his
book "paddy after paddy, wife after wife". (In Burmese agricultural
practice, rice is planted and harvested from the same field over and over
again.  In the same way, Ne Win married again and again.  This popular
saying reflects the public's disapproval of Ne Win's many marriages.) For
that, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The SLORC will not gain any
benefit by attacking, in a low-down way, Daw Suu and her family. As it has
been mentioned earlier, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was neither the creator nor the
originator of the pro-democracy movement. She only inherited it.

Even if there were no Daw Suu, the effort for democracy and human rights in
Burma would not lose its momentum. So long as the oppressive military
dictatorship is in existence, the resistance against it will continue to be
active. The SLORC will make no gain by attempting to confuse and weaken the
people's struggle for democracy, human rights and peace by diverting
attention to the family affairs of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, through defamation.

Furthermore, the SLORC, under the assumed name of Htoon Shwe, in their
writing asked, "Had the Queen of England married a black Indian, would she
be accepted as the Queen of Britain and had the American President married a
black Muslim woman, would he also be accepted as the president?" It should
be asked why the SLORC did not raise such a question with regard to Rajiv
Gandhi of India, which has the second largest population in the world and is
one of the nearest countries to Burma.

I would like to say, according to my personal view, that as Daw Suu is the
people's leader during a time of struggle and through the demands of the
situation of the present day, the people would still support her fully even
if her husband Michael Aris were not a prominent person but an ordinary
foreigner of no means. For that reason, it must be said that the slanderous
propaganda spread by the SLORC under the assumed name of Mr. Htoon Shwe is
petty, because it has no political standard and it is based on personal hatred.

In a Nut Shell

It is hoped that this short account of the my experience and personal views
resulting from my brief contact with Daw Aung San Sun Kyi will help throw
light on the extraordinary nature, sagacity, courage and mental power of Daw
Suu. Moreover, since the international community, in addition to the people
of Burma, has accorded various kinds of awards and honours to her, it will
be clear before long, as in the Mahawthada story of Buddhist scriptures, who
is the real mother and who is the ogre.* 

The attempt to suppress true events in the historical development of the
people's struggle by the use of personal attacks can only bring adversity.
In accordance with the saying in the Buddhist doctrine "Hatred begets
detriment", the handful of SLORC officials who have been using this cowardly
method of vilification are bound to be at the receiving end, sooner or
later. It will be a case of being "a victim of one's own doing", a good
lesson for us to learn, and from it, become enlightened.

Thuh-attaman Paviha-randu (May everyone have peace and joy)

Ashin Khaymar Sarra 
All Burma Young Monks' Union

* In the Buddhist story referred to, Mahawthada is one of the (last) ten
rebirths of the Buddha before He achieved enlightenment. When a woman and a
demon disguised as a woman both lay claim to an infant, it falls to
Mahawthada to determine who is the real mother of the child.  He does so and
restores the infant to the rightful parent. 

A SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF THE VENERABLE ASHIN KHAYMAR SARRA
Venerable Ashin Khaymar Sarra was born on September 10, 1956, in an Arakan
village on the far western side of Burma. After finishing his schooling in
the village primary school, he became a novice in 1964 through the support
of his parents.

He studied Buddhist literature, in both Burmese and Pall, in Arakan State,
Pegu, Rangoon, and Mandalay, in Buddhist monasteries renowned for scriptural
scholarship. In 1971 and 1972, he taught Buddhist literature at a monastery
in a remote area of Karen State. Since 1974, he has produced numerous
articles for monthly papers and journals.

In the 1988 democracy uprising and human rights movements, he participated
in the formation of the All Burma Young Monks' Union and joined in the
struggle with other workers and students. He left Rangoon for the liberated
area on October 30, 1988, following the regime's shameless seizure of power
on September 18, 1988.

He has subsequently visited Asian and European countries to share his
experience and knowledge of the human rights situation in Burma. He
continues his work as a writer and in the movement, as the Chairman of the
All Burma Young Monks' Union in the liberated area, endeavouring to achieve
the harmony of democracy, human rights, and peace in Burma.


First Edition
January 1998
Published by All Burma Young Monks' Union
PO Box 48
Chiang Mai University
50202, Thailand
http://www2.gol.com/users/brelief/Index.htm