By:August 12, 2012

An open letter written in Burmese by little Ma Hla Myaing to the 8888 generation leaders of Burma seems to hit the nail on the head.1 The Tatmadaw (Burmese Army) visualise that the 8888 generations is the upcoming force to reckon, because it is a movement and not a political party. The Tatmadaw visualise that NLD is nothing without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and is incapable of producing young and vibrant leaders and unlike the 8888 generation who can not only organize but also works hands in glove with the Burmese Diaspora communities is more of a threat. It also sensed that NLD cannot keep its house in order.2

The master brains of the Tatmadaw cleverly crafted the policy of “Let the minority fight the minority” pitting national sovereignty versus humanitarian and human rights, just to discredit the Lady, on her trip to Europe and shore up the army’s image. But instead it finds itself on hot pebbles, compelling them to let Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu tour Arakan State, who advised the Burmese government to accept an independent enquiry commission from OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation of 56 Islamic states promoting Muslim solidarity in economic, social, and political affairs) and being targeted by Islamic extremists organizations of the world. In Burmese we say instead of trapping a rabbit, the house cat was caught.

What a shame for the country and the government which paints the picture that it is unable to settle its own domestic problem is being forced to accept international arbitration.

Clearly the continuing conflict in Burma is not simply fought in terms of restoring democracy and human rights. It must be emphasized that there is a deeper politics of historical memories, which continues to serve as one of the biggest obstacles to national reconciliation. Historians know well that every story has many sides, many aspects, and many dimensions to explore. When a story is about such a topic as faith or politics, emotions can quickly become charged.3 Politics and contemporary history often intertwine, and inextricably connect, as individuals advocate for beliefs and ideas important to them. When history and beliefs are challenged, it is easy to believe we ourselves are being challenged. Unchecked, this can open old wounds, and further the distance between us.4

Each community feels a need to retain its sense of self, its collective memory in the face of the Myanmar-centered vision of the Burmese nation by the government, which the ethnic nationalities have come to view as colonial power. The government’s version of Burma’s history is radically different from what their own communal and ethnic memories teach them. Should any one group operate with racial or ethnic superiority – as Myanmar Buddhists have often done – it is certain to trigger deep resentment and forceful, dysfunctional expression of ethno-nationalisms of the most intense category? The value of memories, like anything that is human and socially constructed, has its limits. When two competing memories collide, as it were, the reliance on memories sets back the clock of history (of a nation) today one of independence, where the primordial sentiments surge. It is no longer fruitful to use the past events or memories as a guide.

Unfortunately, it is inconceivable that these differences in memories can be sorted out in any mutually satisfactory way, given the sorry state of hardened ethnic distrust and irreconcilable versions of these memories among different ethnic communities each of who views Burma as their ancestral home. For instance, the military leaders and the great majority of the Mahar Myanmar share a belief that the present day Burma developed in a linear fashion straight from the founding of the first Burmese kingdom at the central plains of Pagan in the 11th century. Only the British colonization of the Myanmar Kingdom disrupted this historical development. They believe in the accounts of their mighty, expansionistic imperialist empires with subordinate alliances made up of multi-ethnic and multi-language communities, including the Shan, the Arakanese, the Mons, and so on, encompassing the present day Burma and its political boundaries and, at times, stretching into neighbouring India and Thailand are their subordinates and hence should not be treated as equal. How to get rid of this erroneous disease is a major problem.5

A wildly different version is in circulation among non-Myanmar ethnic groups. In his report on State Constitutions Drafting Process, General Secretary Lian H. Sakhong of the United Nationalities League for Democracy writes:

“The Union of Burma is a nation-state of diverse ethnic nations (ethnic nationalities or nationalities), founded in 1947 at the Panglong Conference by pre-colonial independent ethnic nationalities such as the Chin, the Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Rakhine (Arakan), Myanmar (Burman) and Shan based on the principle of equality. As it was founded by formerly independent peoples in 1947 through an agreement, the boundaries of the Union of Burma today are not historical.”

This is a representative view among many non-Myanmar ethnic groups in Burma. These divergent – and obviously irreconcilable – memories die hard, and there is no way a common threat out of these divergent histories can be drawn. Despite the polemics of federalism, some of the ethnic groups such as the Shan appear to have kept their independence aspirations.

The Myanmar military leadership is fully aware of these centrifugal tendencies backed up by corresponding or supporting historical memories of various ethnic communities. How should Burma proceed if its histories are tortured and unhelpful?

If her past is no guide – and then perhaps her future – more accurately, how the parties want Burma’s future to be – the vision for a future Burma – can serve as a blueprint. Such a vision born out of civic, national debate is solely needed, and so are the leaders who are equipped intellectually to appreciate this process and not allow them to succumb to powerful primordial sentiments in the process. No doubt the flames of ethno-nationalisms of Burma will continue to burn, given the fact that many non-Myanmar ethnic communities have felt that they have been deprived of equality, politically, culturally and economically under the Myanmar dominated rule for so long. The distrust and fear of the Myanmar commonly shared by non-Myanmar groups throughout the country began long before the nationalist army headed by Aung San came into existence in 1941.

Tatmadaw have become a state within the State with its own short- and long-term plans designed to ensure the institutional survival, dominance, and reproduction in the country, and this is the structural issue that can help explain the longevity of the Tatmadaw as the dominant political force. The NLD may be the most popular brand name and symbol of democratic change or the push for it, but it is the Tatmadaw which the majority of people have come to view as the institution which can repel any threats, external and internal, to the country’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence as was demonstrated in the Mujahid crisis in Western Burma’s sectarian crisis.

Throughout Burma’s society, not excluding the Myanmar majority communities, there is widely shared a great deal of animosity and hatred toward the Tatmadaw and the military officers at all levels, not just the top brass. However, most Burmese have a sense of Myanmar-centered nationalism and feel some ideological affinity with their military rulers, more than our cosmopolitan, “enlightened” Myanmar politicians who speak a language littered with words like “federalism” or “self-determination.”

Suffice it to say no Myanmar politician, however popular, has articulated where he or she really stands on the question of ethnic nationalities right to self-determination, including the right to secede from the Union of Burma. They all take the majority position that under no circumstances is secession of any group acceptable. For no matter how much animosity between the people – especially the Myanmar or those who have bought into this Myanmar-centered nationalism or worldview – and the Tatmadaw personnel, they all drink from the same ideological well-spring. This shared ideological bond serves as an unbroken structural linkage between the Tatmadaw and the majority Myanmar. It is a bond based on ethno-nationalistic emotions that give the great majority of people a strong sense of belonging to a national community in which they are dominant. It is a much more powerful bond than that which may have developed among NLD supporters subscribing to a set of liberal political values and beliefs with no root in the native political culture. As far as the Myanmar majority, their blood is still thicker than the water of friendship.

While the democratic Myanmar wishes to befriend and adopt liberal values and outlook, when push comes to shove, they will go with their blood ties at the expense of equality and ethnic justice. This is where the 8888 Generation falls. The country’s structural bond of ethno-nationalism plays out even among relatively sophisticated dissidents in exile during discussions, on-line or otherwise, that touch on ethnic equality, self-determination and re-constructing alternative histories of Burma and the ethnic communities. When juxtaposed with the ideological discourse of human rights and democracy, it is elevated as the mainstream ideology among the NLD-led democracy movement.

Likewise, Thai-Burma and Indo-Burmese border-based dissident organizations and armed resistance groups always encounter occasions, formal and otherwise, in which the position taken by Myanmar dissidents resembles that of their ideological kinfolks – the members of the military government and its official view toward ethnic relations in the country. Indeed, in the half-century since independence, the Myanmar and the non Myanmar are still mired in what Clifford Geertz terms ” the pattern of primordial dissidence.”

If the Burmese authorities continue to teach the Myanmar version of history in the Burma proper area as it is their right in as much as the ethnic nationalities continue to teach their version of history in the their own respective States and divisions and not to the whole country, it will slowly erode the Pyidoungsu spirit. In the ethnic dominated states their version of history will have to be taught as the ethnic nationalities cannot impose their version of history to the Myanmar group vice versa in as much as the Myanmar cannot impose their version on the ethnic nationalities. For history is the study of the past of the whole country the History of the Union of Burma or rather Pyidaungsu History(jynfaxmifpkordkif;) which started with the Panglong Accord should be taught. Then it must be imposed on the education of the whole country. This is just but one way of solving the historical memories and well as tantamount to solidifying the Union Spirit or Pyidoungsu Seikdat (jynfaxmifpkpdwf “gwf) and that the Myanmar and the non Myanmar are equals.

No doubt Burma’s human rights situation has improved notably in some respects but it has significantly worsened in Kachin and Arakan states. Freedoms of assembly and expression remain restricted, and hundreds of political prisoners and many prisoners of conscience remain in jail. In several ethnic minority areas, the army continues to commit violations of international human rights and humanitarian law against civilians, including acts that may constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes, Amnesty International said in a statement submitted to the UN Human Rights Council.

“Many of these reported crimes are taking place despite cease-fire agreements between the Myanmar army and the relevant ethnic minority armed groups, the cease-fire is not being obeyed, while in others serious human rights violations continue even when the fighting has stopped.”6

It also cited “credible accounts” of the army using prison convicts as porters, forcing them to act as human shields and minesweepers. Latest report indicates that in exterminating the Kachin the Tatmadaw has deployed over 100 battalions of troops and t least 55,000 people have been internally displaced since fighting resumed in mid-2011. Extrajudicial executions, children killed by shelling and other indiscriminate attacks, forced labour, and unlawful confiscation of food and property are the usual standard of the Burmese army.7 The Investigation and prosecution of human rights violations and crimes against humanity are obstructed by Article 445 of the 2008 Constitution, which stipulates that “no proceeding” may be instituted against officials of the military governments since 1988 “in respect of any act done in the execution of their respective duties.”

In an early February statement, Ojea Quintana stressed that moving forward on Burma cannot ignore or whitewash what happened in the past, and that acknowledging the violations suffered will be necessary to ensure national reconciliation and prevent future violations from occurring. It seems that the Thein Sein administration, like the previous Junta will continue to uphold, “Lying the very concept of truth.” and so the international community and the world at large must improve its understanding of the aspirations of Burma’s ethnic nationalities and give greater attention to addressing the needs of these ethnic nationalities in discussions of the country’s human rights situation before indulging in trade and development works.

Notes:

1. I label her as little because I saw her picture flashed on the media when she just was a little girl that participated alongside with her elder brother Tin Maung OO who was first student to be hanged by the Burmese army way back in 70s, now a responsible person looking after her parents and the rest of the family in Canada is carrying on the fight.

2. I learned that my Article “Killing two Birds with a Stone, a Win Win Situation” ideas an attempt of solving the Rohingya and Chinese crisis which was emailed to the lady never reaches her. On following up I lamentably discovered that even the major broadcasting stations of the world had to bribe her associates in order interview her. Very lately she herself has to discharged some of her handpicked followers The moral corruption initiated by Ne Win administrations runs deep.

3. May Oo, Naw; “Reconciliation needed for a United Burma” Irrawaddy Magazine 16th March 2010

4. May Oo, Naw; “Reconciliation needed for a United Burma” Irrawaddy Magazine 16th March 2010

5. The proof of this can be seen in the monumental statutes in Naypyidaw

6. Mizzima News 12-2-2012 U.N. should consider commission of inquiry on Burma

7. Mizzima 5 -6 -2012 Fighting in Kachin State Detailed in Free Burma Ranger’s Report

When President Hu Jintao visited US in January this year both leaders declared their shared obsession of “Positive cooperation and comprehensive bilateral relations.” but the underlying trends could not be neglected. Based on the recent actions of China, most American and foreign strategic thinkers construe that China is displacing the US as a pre-eminent power in Asia and the Pacific to suit the Chinese economic and foreign policy interests. China which has a dominant naval position through a series of island chains in the pacific has the advantage and besides the Chinese neighbors has to depend on the Chinese economy and trade. Compounded with this is the inability and uncertainty of the American reaction. Seeing the US withdrawing from the Middle East and Afghanistan, there seems to have little or no choice for Asia but soon will be forced to adjust their policies to line with the Chinese preferences. That is exactly what Burma is doing especially its current leaders, the vehemently hated Generals who are very desirous to stay on in power with the help of China and have outflanked Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to get the Western Sanctions lifted. 

From the perspective of the Chinese both academics and layman sees America as a wounded tiger to be very much feared that will attack anyone to thwart the rise of any challenger of which China is the most credible. No matter how Chinese pursues 

cooperation with Washington it’s fixed objective is to hem a growing China with military deployment and alliances as what it is doing now in Australia and Southeast Asia in the South, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the East, India and Middle East in the West and of course there is Russia and Europe. Here Burma plays a vital part for soon it will be in a position to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East, if it chooses to be in the American Camp. If there is an encirclement led by the US succeed it can prevent China from playing its historical role as the Middle Kingdom (Chung Kuo 中国). In this perspective any sustained cooperation with the United States is self defeating. Hence according to Long Tao the current Chinese strategic thinker, it is far better to strike first before thing gradually runs out of hand, so launching some small scale battles could deter provocateurs from getting going further and a classic example is the Spratly Island dispute with Vietnam and Philippines. 

China has a long history of shoring up the dictators of the world and her latest veto on Syrian clearly demonstrated that the Chinese leaders could not allow one of their dictators fell again like Colonel Mohammad Gadaffi for birds of a feather tends to flocks together .Obviously the Chinese leaders cannot allow a flourishing democracy at its back door in Burma. So when Commander-in-Chief of the Burmese army Gen Min Aung Hlaing visited China in Nov. last year and signed a Defence Pact with Gen. Chen Bingde of the PLA, there was a rumor that China will give a hand by recognizing the new regime if ever it launches a military coup against Thein Sein Administration (which was legally allowed in the Constitution) and this was clearly written in the diplomatic language of the Sino-Burma Defense Pact as “no matter how the international situation changes,” according to the Chinese state-run, Xinhua news agency. The hidden fact is that once the Western sanctions are lifted, China will not be in a position to monopolise the Trade and Development knowing full well that this step back will be very beneficial to China. Now that Shwe Mann (butcher of Depaeyin), speaker of the lower house and Deputy Chairman of USDP the ruling party met Wu Bangguo, Chairman of or National People’s Congress and the Politburo Standing Committee, while Thein Sein is schedule to go in May things may become more clearer. 

It is natural that Ideological predispositions battle with the dictatorial countries where most of the political scientists believe that democratic China will have little cause to fear as it was the people and not the dictators that decide the fate of the country and the world. To this theory the Chinese leaders construe that the West lead by the US is destabilising China with the ideological imperialism. Obviously all dictatorial countries are inherently sensitive as crying wolf and endeavour to rally the domestic support by nationalist rhetoric and practice. Therefore the Chinese argue that the ultimate aim of the US is to hasten the revolution in China, where soon there would be a mass uprising and naturally cold shivers runs through their spines of the Chinese Communist leaders as even now there was a mass defection of Communist cadres from the party. 

But we should learn our lessons in the contemporary history of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Except in the spending of military, the Soviet Union was no match against the American economy. The weak Soviet economy did not much affects the world except to a small extent in the socialist countries. But the current China is the most dynamic factor in the world economy and if these two giants come off to blows, then the world economy will be very much affected with dire consequences especially to the Asian countries where Burma will become a battle ground just like the 2nd World War and be reduced to dust. Asian countries knew the American values of Democracy and Human rights are universal and indivisible are part of the world’s culture and the majority of the people of Asia are anathema to the Chinese support of the dictatorial regimes such as Burma, Syria, Zinbabwe etc. China has its own rationale but an average man could not comprehend the Chinese policy. 

Chinese military build up is not a phenomenon as it is natural for the world’s largest economy with the largest population and the largest importer of natural resources would do. But to what extent is the question? Is it for defensive or offensive? This lead to the question of what are the capabilities of the weapons and the consequences should be the barometer. .An unrestricted arms race will surely have a dire consequences and we construe that the Chinese leaders are well aware of its own history and the role they are going to play in this bi-polar or multi-polar world. 

The other perspective is that the West often refer to China as a rising power that will need to be “matured” and learn how to exercise “responsibility” on the world stage is somewhat similar to what China treats the West as barbarian before the Opium Wars (1st Opium War1839; 2nd 1856, 3rd 1884 ). The reality is that China is not a rising power but a retuning power, as Dr. Henry A Kessinger (the former Secretary of State that initiated the American China policy) describes it, except that it has been replaced by colonial exploiters of the West for two millennia. Lecturing a country with a history of millennia about the need to “Grow up” and behave “responsibly” will be an insult to the |Chinese even though it has behave it in the case of Burma, Iran and Syria. China exercising its influence in economics, cultural political and military should rather be treated as normal unless the West led by the US wants to initiate a new Cold War. 

The Burmese like the Chinese are a proud people following a century of humiliation at the hands of the British and then reeling for three quarter of a century under the boots of military is about to be awaken up, if the two super power reach an accord and handle this little sly fox properly. The military both existing and retired abhor federal system , which in their hearts of hearts know that they will have to share their resources with the Non Myanmar groups giving the pretexts of disintegrating the Union. The fact that these men in uniforms did not recognize the making of modern Burma at Panglong (1947) itself is against the Union of the country and against Democracy and Human Rights. Since this country being in the back door of China and look forward to US the two giants should have a thorough discussion before taking a well coordinated action on this puppet regime of Thein Sein.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in her speech to Kachin State said, “Everyone must adhere to the spirit of Panglong, which is based on equality and unity, with respect, faith and belief in each other. All of these are essential for creating and maintaining a genuine democracy,”[1] She seems to strike the right note because now the people of Burma had slowly discovered that it was the Tatmadaw controlled by the hard liners pulled by Than Shwe are really the culprit of all the troubles befalling on the country as it is anathema to the Union of Burma, Democracy and Human Rights. The Tatmadaw’s ingrained phobia of federalism is the biggest stumbling block along with hard liners’ dissatisfaction of the Tatmadaw playing a perceived smaller role in politics,[2] which can derail the reforms and take the country back to dictatorship. 

The Tatmadaw has effectively destroyed every civil institution that might have played that role of leading the country. As long as the Tatmadaw military prevents the rise of pluralism within the governmental structure and the growth of civil society there will be no one to challenge the Tatmadaw is their sincere basic belief. Hence the military believe that they are the only present and future institution capable of keeping Burma united as a single country, and that pluralism is destructive to national unity. This is why they have essentially replaced earlier state ideologies (including socialism under the military-led BSPP regime and Buddhism under U Nu) with an ideology that effectively focuses on the military itself and its comprehensive societal role and, in part, on its mythic history. Whereas under the military's Burma Socialist Programme Party period (1962-1988) the military were portrayed as the keepers of the socialist flame but as of, today it is the military itself that is the ideological nexus of society. The Tatmadaw consider past political leaders as venal, corrupt, ineffective, and incapable of running the state and assuring its unity. 

The Tatmadaw believe that the ethnic nationalities are inherently inferior (culturally and socially) and would split from Myanmar authority if given the chance. The Tatmadaw also believe the ethnic nationalities are distrustful of the Myanmar majority and fear Myanmar ethnic domination. The army provide only lip-service respect for ethnic nationalities culture through ritualized holidays and propaganda efforts. 

The Tatmadaw view economic progress, reform, or liberalization as secondary to maintenance of political control, or indeed as a means to such control. The primary function of an improved economy is greater military power, general political acquiescence of the population to military control through military delivery of greater economic rewards for loyalty, and improved political legitimacy, and not directly the betterment of the human condition. To this end, the military believe they must control the economy via their cronies and have set up direct and many indirect mechanisms. The military view any form of pluralism within the administration at any level, in the dissemination of information, and among non-governmental organizations as a threat to the state and their control. The military have no intention of giving up essential power even though a civilian facade for their control is likely eventually to be established. They will not grant any ethnic nationality groups a significant degree of power at the national level, although some modest local self-government will be given to some groups with which cease fires have been arranged. The military is rather reluctant to allow Daw Suu to play any significant role in any administration. It is just doing to lift the sanctions. 

The Tatmadaw believes that the country is surrounded by enemies–real and potential. These threats no longer take the form of territorial aggrandizement, but economic domination and the possibility of encouraging ethnic nationalities separatism. This fear is based on a reality once extinct e.g. a well documented foreign support include American assistance to KMT forces in Burma, Pakistani-Bangladeshi support for Muslim (Mujahid now Rohingya) insurgents, Thai help to a variety of insurgent groups (both ethnic and students), Indian backing of anti government groups, some British support for the Karen, Chinese aid to the Burma Communist Party and PRC Chinese maps shows some part of Burma into their territory, while WA is a Chinese tribe and a general perception that Christian minorities have closer support and contact with foreigners than do the Myanmar Buddhist. 

These fears include China as potentially (or perhaps even presently) having undue influence in Burma. The military regard the United States as highly significant to them because of its international influence, but distrust U.S. motives and influence, believing that if sufficiently provoked the U.S. might intervene militarily in Burma as it had done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Foreign public criticism of the Junta simply forces a nationalistic response, and foreign pressures for reform are viewed as infringements of Burmese sovereignty, and foreign support for the NLD undercuts the NLD’s potential legitimacy (in their view). 

If so the theory that the Tadmadaw to take temporary control, when a civilian government strays from its ‘national ideal’ or obligation is correct then it should have solved the civilian conflict long ago among the various ethnic nationalities as any genuine guardian. But this was not the case and is entirely opposite of what they claim. For example, there was a democracy dilemma in civilian rule in early 1950 to 1960: civilian rulers from the Myanmar extremists group tried to dominate the country by secret Buddishnisation and Myanmarnization over other ethnic nationalities by making Buddhism the state religion, the Tatmadaw did nothing even though it express that it was against it. So from this theory it proves that Tatmadaw is not a guardian of the country and did nothing right even though it knows that it was wrong. This alone proves beyond doubt that Tatmadaw is not genuine custodian of the country as it claims. It was just in the pockets of the Generals who enriched themselves at the expense of the entire people of Burma. 

This certainly violates the nation’s constitution as well as the fundamental Panglong Agreement, or the Independence national day declaration by discrimination and restriction of freedom. Society’s support of this fundamentalist and pro-domination trend is always a problem for nation building. It apparently led to the failure of civilian rule. In such an event, the intervention of the military is appropriate to prevent extremists taking power. But here the military also became the partner of extremist Myanmar. The people later realized they were linked with each other.

Slowly, we discovered that the Tatmadaw initially, immediately reorganized the army and later held a coup to form the Socialist party, with the purpose of monopolizing military power and controlling the country. Looking back, the behaviour of the Tatmadaw was not about creating a resolution for democracy, but rather about having lasting political power and control of the country. Hence it was again the very grain of democracy and union spirit (Pyidaungsu Seikdat). When the military took power on Sept 19th, 1988 after killing more than three to four thousand s people, it was not about the ethnics but about the issue of democracy and the majority of the Myanmar nationalities participated. This is the authenticated proof that the Tatmadaw is not only against the Union spirit but also against Democracy and Human Rights 

According to logic, if and when, conflicts between the Myanmar dominant group and other ethnic groups arise, within the system of civilian rule, the Tatmadaw should protect and be responsible for their reunification if it claims to be the mentor of the nation instead of aiding the ethnic-cleansing of the other ethnic groups. The Tatmadaw should play an impartial role if it is really the people’s army. 

Now it is clear that the military intervenes to protect and advance the interests of a specific class and a religious group, the Myanmar Buddhist. The Tatamadaw is systematically maintaining power itself to control the civilian population. This is raison d’être of allegedly removing the federal army battalions as the Shan, Chin and Kachin Regiments. The Tadmadaw was also hand-in-glove with the Myanmar extremists helping to exploit and collapse other ethnic societies. This is another regrettable mistake in the Tatmadaw history and proof beyond doubt that it has no Pyidaungsu Seikdat. Hence it is and was a Mahar Myanmar orientated Tatmadaw

The Tatmadaw seemed to try to re-assume democracy in the 27 May 1990 election. But when the result were declared it was clear that people did not approve of the army being in power. So they refused to give up power .The Tatmadaw has tasted power for a long period that it cannot let it go even after 2010 elections they still hold on to the form of ex generals and handpicked people and surely will stay on in power with this unreasonable constitution . Hence Tatmadaw is in the category of the enemy of the people of Burma and the country itself. Now it is by trick that they are trying to organise the dissident Myanmar and not the ethnic nationalities. The only option is for the people to unite and fights back and until and unless there is serious or any damaging opposition armed attack, their attitude is unlikely to change. The Tatmadaw has cheated the public several times as it is doing now. This is a trap for the Burmese people as the military always blocks efforts to obtain civilian rule. The Burmese people have lost the opportunity of having a civilian administration and their liberty, for more than half a century. Hence even in a guided democracy as it is today Thein Sein cannot control the army. 

Furthermore, in a democratic system, the concern is to ensure a professional and political military that acknowledges civilian authority and executes the orders of a democratically elected government. These seem to be only one way if we were to follow President Obama’s speech acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize, “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms,” can be demonstratively applied to Burma—a nonviolent movement could not have halted Burmese armies. Negotiations cannot convince Burmese feudal warlords and thugs to lay down their arms.[3]

The Burmese Junta craved for its legitimacy so much that they cannot even take a sense of humour, nor do they appreciate being laughed at. It came as no surprise then when the ruling military regime in Burma sentenced the country’s best known comedian, named Zarganar, to 45 years in prison. Even though he is released it painted an astonishingly brutal campaign to eradicate all political opposition The Junta had sentences for two reasons. The first is to decapitate any possibility of challenge to a tightly scripted and controlled political reform process, by locking away the leadership and spiritual and artistic supporters of resistance to military rule. The second is to instil fear in an already fearful and beaten down population; by targeting a cross-section of Burma’s resurgent civil society, the regime is stating clearly that resistance is futile.[4]

The relation between the military-ruled state and civilians is highly coercive and makes any expression of public dissent for civilians a matter of life and death. The military is unable to distinguish between citizens and enemies of the state was confirmed during the uprising in September 2007, when even marching monks were perceived as nothing but “state enemies” that have to be defeated. This perception is underpinned by an institutionalised elitism and a general disdain for civilians and politicians in the upper echelon of the Tatmadaw that goes back to the 1950s.The involvement in administrative, political, and economic matters nourished the idea of extensive competencies within the military.[5]

The ruling regime prevented the emergence of any independent social and political organisation, and tried to subdue the citizenry further into an invisible entity, totally compliant and mute.[6] A coherent strategy or consistent method in dealing with civil society is not discernible. The regime’s Home Ministry and the Ministry of Culture made an attempt to shutdown independent and community-based social, cultural, religious, and ethnic organisations in Rangoon in 2007. In general, the regime intervenes whenever its threat perception is raised, usually when an independent organisation or individual becomes too successful and attracts too many members or followers. The most famous example is the Rangoon based Free Funeral Services Organisation that is continually harassed due to its successful charity work. 

On the other hand the regime tries to define and control civil society exclusively through government sponsored organisations like the Myanmar Women’s Affairs Federation, Myanmar Fire Brigade, Myanmar Red Cross Society, and so on, which are led by active and retired military officers and organises mass rallies, conducts military training, and undertakes social and community services.[7] It is increasingly involved in policing measures and harassment of activists aided by a militia group, Swan Ah Shin “Owners of Vigour” Both organisations took part in the crackdown of the demonstrators in the monk-led uprising in September 2007.[8]

Tatmadaw have mocks the very idea of democracy and fundamental freedoms. The regime thrives on frustration and lack of attention, happily repressing its people in quiet. If we do not loudly and strongly condemn this draconian process, hundreds of Burma’s leading thinkers and performers will disappear into the country’s squalid gulag, and the ephemeral promise of a liberal and free Burma could well be lost to another generation. Hence it is very vivid that Tatmadaw is the only stumbling block against the Pyidaungsu the Union of Burma and against democracy itself. Those who argue that Tatamadaw should be retained against the external threat of the country should consider the above facts. Once this enemy Number One, Tatamadaw is gone, then peace, sovereignty, unity with love will return to Burma. 

[1] Mann, Zarni: Suu Kyi Delivers Message of Trust, Respect in Myitkyina Irrawaddy 24-2-2-12 

[2] Wai;Kyaw San Beyond Ceasefires: Burma’s Precarious Peace Process – Analysis RSIS, Nanyang Technological University 

[3] Zaw, Aung; “ Oslo’s Message” Irrawaddy, Dec 17th 2009 

[4] Mathieson; David Scott,. “No time for Jokes” in National Post 

[5] Nyein; Susanne Prager; Expanding military, Shrinking citizenry and the New Constitution 

Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol.39, No. 4, November 2009, pp.638-648. 

[6] At the time of this writing, over 2,000 dissidents and members of the political opposition are under detention, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is under detention. 

[7] See Steinberg; David Turmoil in Burma. Contested Legitimacies in Myanmar, Norwalk: East Bridge, 2006: 46, 93 

[8] P. Pinheiro, Report of the Special Rapporteur Pinheiro, 11. December 2007, Geneva: Human Rights Council, 2007. 

Once a drunken American met a Burmese on a road and asked “Hey! What Ese are you?” The man was bewildered and so the American says “I mean to say are you a Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese or Vietnamese since you must end in one of the Ese?” The man replied that he is a Burmese because the Junta who change the name from Burma to Myanmar has forbid anyone using the name of Myanmarnese. Then he asked the American “By the way friend what keys are you? I mean to say, are you a Monkey or a Donkey or a Yankey?” This is exactly what the Obama administration is treating the quasi Burmese civilian administration, underestimating the cunning and the craftiness of the Burmese diplomacy. 

If we go back to the contemporary history of neutrality or rather the non alignment movement, one can see the Burmese imprint there. Burma after gaining independence from Great Britain in 1948 was beset by civil ones and join the Colombo plan (conceived at the Commonwealth Conference of Foreign Affairs in Colombo in Jan 1950s) to get some resources for its armed forces but it was in 1954 Colombo Conference, the five participating countries (Burma India Ceylon Indonesia and Pakistan) pledge their neutrality in the Cold War, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, the most influential leader was backed by U Nu, Prime Minister of Burma in calling the Bandung Conference to create an atmosphere of corporation and put Asia and Africa in the world’s picture that pave the way to thee Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Bandung. As of today the movement had 120 members and 17 as observer’s countries. 

In the impending Cold War between China and US, it seems that Burma will play a crucial part and obviously the ex-brass will try their level best to remain in power in the so called newly emerging Burmese democracy. In the economic sphere American preeminence, can no longer be taken for granted, nor can it be assumed that a stronger, richer China is good news for America -- as successive U.S. presidents have argued since 1978. On the contrary Americans are getting the queasy feeling that a richer, more powerful China might just mean a relatively poorer, relatively weaker America. In other words, the rise of China is not a Win-Win situation for both nations. It is a zero-sum game. Respected economists like Paul Krugman and Fred Bergsten have argued that imposing tariffs would be a legitimate U.S. response to Chinese currency policies. 

China set to overtake the US as the world's largest economy, possibly as soon as 2016 according to an International Monetary Fund projection,Washington sees Beijing as already flexing its muscles, with increases in military spending and a harder-line in border disputes with a range of neighbors, including India, Japan, and Vietnam. As a result, the United States is seeking to make common cause with China's nervous neighbors including Burma and this is where the Burmese regime will try to exploit for its survival. 

By taking advantage of China overplaying its hand in the South China Sea and generally unnerving most of the region, the Obama administration is smart in reconfirming the central role in Asia. The opening of a new base in Australia is a powerful symbol of America's enduring strategic presence in the region and relations with Burma has both strategic motives as well as several other implications. He is also taken a pro-democracy posture not only in Burma but also in the Middle East and Russia. Given these the political evolution of countries in these regions will have a direct bearing on the international strategic situation and on the nature of world order in the coming years. 

But Beijing is likely to be the fulcrum around which Asian relations and economies revolve—a revival of the Middle Kingdom era when China was “first-among-equals” in Asia. For Burma, despite its recent attempts to reduce China's influence and forge better political and business ties with the West, China's inevitable rise to first-among-equals status in Asia will weigh heavily on its much-smaller south-western neighbour. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's opposition leader and an icon for politically-aware Westerners, has stressed her neutral view of China—an acknowledgment that Burma will continue to do much business with the Asian superpower regardless of its future relationship with the West. Hundreds of thousands Chinese migrants now live in Burma, and Chinese investors have put around US $12billion into the country. In addition, despite the Myitsone suspension, there are 25 other “mega-dam projects” underway in Burma, many of them Chinese-backed. So no matter what changes come to Burma or global politics in 2012, China will likely remain an important factor for decision-makers in Naypyidaw. 

Knowing that the New Cold War will be over natural resources rather than the old one over ideas, President Obama’s long term economic goal is laudable and most importantly is that America will be self-sufficient in oil by 2030 because of growing U.S. domestic production and Canadian output, according to Julian Lee, a senior energy analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies .On the other hand China will be depended more and more on foreign oil. Oil from the Middle East and African crude is currently being transported in tankers via the 900km-long Malacca Strait, that connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans, is one of the world's busiest shipping channels and around 650,000 vessels pass through it every year and roughly 80% of China's annual imports of 1.5 billion barrels of oil pass through the narrow seaway. Chinese analysts and leaders have been describing the strait, as a strategic vulnerability, drawing attention to the consequences for China that if this shipping channel were to fall into the hands of "hostile powers" or pirates or terrorists. What if the US were to block China's access to the strait in the event of a China-Taiwan conflict? Hence China is constructing an oil pipe line from the Bay of Bengal that will cut through Burma direct to China .The roughly 2,000 kilometres of pipeline starting from Kyaukpyu in Western Burma will terminate at Kunming in Yunnan province at a cost of $1.5 billion the entire cost of constructing the pipelines will be borne by China. 

Burma has the world's 10th-largest natural gas reserves, estimated at over 90 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 19 onshore and three major offshore fields. Due to the proximity of Burma, and cosy relations with the tyrannical Burmese Generals, this veto-holding member of the United Nations Security Council that often prevented resolutions critical of the Junta was rewarded with the oil pipeline is expected to be completed by 2013. China's largest oil and gas company China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) will share the profit with the Burmese Generals. So from early 2013, Chinese oil tankers from the Middle East and Africa will be able to cross the Bay of Bengal to dock at Burma’s Western seaport and thee transport time will be cut by more than a week than via Malacca Strait. What more it is constructing a fast track railway along the pipeline that can reach within five hours to the Burmese shores and at any time the PLA which has a minimal electronic espionage system can be reinforced within hours and be a threat to India and the American base in Diego Garcia? 

China importing 11 percent of its oil from Iran has ignored the latest American and European move for sanctions against Iran which was not backed by the United Nations. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao tour to three oil-rich Gulf monarchies has sidestepped the issue and at the Doha Conference on Jan 18th said. “Legitimate trade should be protected, otherwise the world economic order would fall into turmoil.” as it will become the globe's largest importer of oil by mid-2013. But the Chinese leaders decision to reduce the oil imports carried by tanker coincides with the Burmese Junta offering the construction of the pipeline to Kunming clearly demonstrates the Burmese diplomacy in the New Cold War as China’s top four oil suppliers—Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran and Russia—only Russia is supplying nearly 400,000 barrels per day to China by overland pipeline while the rest has to come via the tankers which will soon be discharging their cargo in the Burmese ports. Beijing even though it parotid to adhere to its traditional policy of non-intervention into the domestic affairs of other countries and the latest vetoed the Security Council resolution on Syria on Assad regime, is still to be seen on its stand on the young and still tender Burmese democracy as it continue to fulfill its growing hydrocarbon needs in their obsession to race with the American superpower. 

Now that Vice-President Xi Jinping’s is schedule to visit Washington, China openly said that the mutual trust between China and the U.S. is lagging. Washington and Beijing have been in conflict sanctions on Iranian, North Korea, Spratly Islands and most recently China’s decision to join with Russia in vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the violence in Syria, which Susan Rice called the veto “disgusting and shameful.”Burma is lining up behind all these conflicts as the regime ploys with idea of considering joining the Cobra Gold military joint exercises that will be directed to China. 

In other words Burma holds the triumph card both in the energy lifeline of China and its flank defence. And definitely China cannot allow a flourishing democracy at her back door without some sort of authoritarian elements. It was here that the sordid Burmese Generals will make its presence felt and no doubt both the Non Myanmar (ethnic nationalities), and the Myanmar democracy movement led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi including the West will have to come with some sort of a compromise.

As a person who had worked at the European Union in Brussels, came as a shock to hear that the Foreign Affairs Council of the E U had adopted conclusions in favour of the current situation in Burma and is suspending the visa ban to prepare the ground for a further significant relaxation of sanctions when they are due for renewal in April.. Even though there are unprecedented causes for optimism, and changes for the better should be positively encouraged, one must harbour the benefit of doubt given the track record of Junta in lying to the international community. There have been many false dawns in the past and we are afraid that the West especially EU might tend to follow the Constructive Engagement used by the Asian countries to prolong the Junta backed administration. 

One should note that the current government ministers are the same persons as in the previous Junta administration and lying and procrastination are their standard norms e.g. President Thein Sein made a speech in March 2011 which promises changes in economic and social development but it takes a year to release some political prisoners and still it did not meet the EU criteria of releasing them unconditionally. What more the catch is releasing more criminals like ex-military and ex-government prisoners e.g. the Spy Chief and his MIS team so that it can use them again in their administration as even now Khin Nyunt get $5000 per month for being a patron to a suspicious philanthropic Mya Yeik Nyo Foundation owned by business tycoon and MP Khin Shwe with a salary of $US5, 000 a month. Every Burmese see the writings on the wall of this staggering salary, 

in a country where a third of the population lives on less than a dollar a day 

Seeking ceasefire with some of the armed ethnic nationalities can be welcome but one recollect that the increased conflict in the past year is a direct result of the military-backed government breaking three ceasefire agreements since elections held in November 2010. [1] Why did the EU made no comment when the ceasefires were broken down, and human rights abuses by the Burmese Army have actually increased? Even now at the time of this writing an all out war against the Kachin with 48,000 soldiers, (120 battalions) [2] while the peace proposal with the Mon has broken down. It is a good aspect that the EU is finally paying more attention to ethnic issues, but talking about financial assistance for returnees is highly premature. Even the ceasefires that have been agreed are tentative, and ceasefires have frequently been broken by the Tatmadaw in the past. With the military-backed government still not engaging in an inclusive political dialogue to address the root causes of the conflict, it is likely to be some time before most refugees feels safe to return.[3] The quasi civilian regime is still using its old trick of Divide and Rule only because of increased international pressure, but has so far refused to engage in dialogue about the political root causes of the conflict, instead deferring discussions to a later date. 

EU welcomes the relaxation of censorship, in a recent interview with the Washington Post, President Thein Sein refused to give guarantees on media freedom, and when asked if he would repeal censorship laws he said; ‘The media needs to take responsibility and proper actions. Media freedom will be based on the accountability they have.” [4] Burma’s media is still highly restricted and not been repealed. The regime warns that “Action will be taken” to any one that publish the true story of unfairly evicting of the abbot of the Sadhu Pariyatti Monastery in Rangoon for his outspoken views or the ethnic conflicts where the government is dishonesty dealing with them. Moreover local journals have already been prevented about irregularities—including in Kawhmu Township where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will contest. USDP has been telling people that they will only get access to electricity and micro-credit schemes only if they vote for them.[5] There are several limits on what media can report. Does EU is aware that free and fair conduct by elections is not possible under current laws in Burma? 

Everybody welcomes freedom of assembly in Burma but there are numerous conditions in place such as the location of demonstration, numbers of people, and permissions needing to be sought by various authorities as such that no legal protest will go ahead without government approval. For Example if the Monks protested again as in 2007 they could be treated much more worst. Promulgating human rights law seems hallow in view of the many caveats and security laws as they are extremely restrictive. It is a good thing that the EU welcomes legislation on trade union activity, but the first trade union was turned down because the President has not promulgated the law and flatly denied the request to creating a new student union or flies the peacock flag which symbolize Burma’s pro-democracy movement 

We are dumfounded when the EU says that it welcomes the humanitarian access and is serious about the welfare of those in the conflict zone when it still refuses to fund cross-border aid to reach those unfortunate citizens where the military-backed government does not allow access. Hypocrisy is a strong word which we dare not use but the price of EU inaction in this areas are costing thousands of lives, [6]

One could not comprehend of why the Thein Sein government is establishing Human Rights Commission, when Than Shwe the previous dictator has already established a Human Rights Commission to cover up their abuses. A classic example being on the bias report of the conditions in Insein jail and we simply could not understand why did EU fails to call for independent international monitors like the Red Cross to be allowed into Burma’s jails? 

Human Rights Watch had proved that the Burmese military continues to violate international humanitarian law through the use of extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, beatings, abusive forced labour, antipersonnel landmines, and pillaging of property, particularly in Kachin, Shan, and Karen States. Yesterday it was revealed that the Tatmadaw deliberately killed a pregnant woman. Burmese army units in Karen State forced convicts to work as porters in ongoing operations in combat zones, mistreating them through beatings, torture, and use as “human shields” to deter attacks or clear antipersonnel landmines. The army continues to actively recruit and use child soldiers, even as the government cooperates with the International Labour Organization on demobilizing child soldiers. Tatmadaw is recruiting child soldiers and using antipersonnel landmines around civilian areas. [7] With such glaring atrocities EU has the heart to reward the Junta backed Government as perhaps because of the numerous German firms and the French Total oil companies are calling the shots at the European Union? 

EU members have spoken about three key benchmarks, the release of all political prisoners, the end of conflict, and free and fair elections. None of these benchmarks have been met. 

(1) Political prisoners have been released, but not all and most of them are still in jail. This benchmark has not been met. Independent international monitors must be allowed into Burma’s jails to make a proper assessment. (2) Steps are now being taken to agree ceasefire agreements, but conflict remains. This benchmark has not been met either 

(3) Free and fair elections under Burma’s laws are not possible. NLD with its high profile and strong support can be overcome this hurdle as long as ballot counting is not rigged. However, other smaller political parties remain disadvantaged. 

When Senator John McCain met President Thein Sein, he asked to allow international observers to monitor the by-election but it seems that he refused. It should be recollect that in 2010, the regime did not allow any observers, but rather sealed the country off from most international press, rigged the election and appointed ex-military leaders to the new quasi-civilian government. [8] It seems that the reforms are only a ploy to have sanctions removed, rather than a sign of genuine political change.[9]

The EU does not have the broad scale and depth of sanctions which the American has. To give away too many sanctions too soon removes what little leverage the EU has. This will more likely discourage further change, rather than encourage it, and the EU will be sidelined in its influence. The EU has flexibility to change its sanctions regime at any time, not just in April when the annual renewal takes places. There is no need for a premature rush to remove all or most sanctions in April. 

It is understandable that the European Union has focus on positives and opportunities as a way of encouraging further change is understandable, but glossing over and ignores serious problems that remain tantamount to be preparing the ground for more significant sanctions to be lifted, and inconvenient truths are ignored. It is still early to see the real motivations for what is taking place as the dialogue process that will lead to real reform and reconciliation is still needed. The EU must show that it is willing to respond positively to changes when they do take place, but at the same time must start to be more realistic about the real scale and nature of what is taking place. None of the changes they refer to involve the military and military backed government relinquishing any power or control Implicit in the argument that sanctions must be relaxed to encourage further change is an acceptance that an important motivation for changes taking place is to get sanctions lifted, rather than the military-backed government having a genuine desire to see a democratic transition. We feel that it is too early to give them the attention they deserve 

The 11-member National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) comprised of the inner circle of Burma’s government and military leaders, which are the real power behind Thein Sein Administration reportedly, discussed sanctions and come to the conclusion that lifting the visa ban is not their top priority. The greater concern are those that restricting the transfer of their ill gotten treasures to the Western financial institutions for the old generals’ near and dear ones because they did not trust the Chinese banks and have taken lessons on the episode of Slobodan Milošević’s wealth . 

What moral leadership would EU give to the Third World countries which are bent on rewarding the Junta’s proxy at the cost of 30 million ethnic nationalities of Burma? Perhaps the economic lens of the EU on the natural and human resources of Burma is too great to count the life and limb of the poor and persecuted ethnic nationalities. 

[1] Analysis of EU Conclusion of Burma by Burma US Campaign No 17 Jan 2012 

[2] Interview with Gen. Sumlut Gun Maw, the vice chief of staff of the KIA 

[3]Analysis of EU Conclusion of Burma by Burma US Campaign No 17 Jan 2012 

[4] Answer to Lally Weymouth, senior associate editor for The Washington Post, 

When the Panglong Agreement was signed in 1947 the Shan, Chin and Kachin want to speed up their own search for freedom together with the Myanmar brothers based on the principle of equality mutual trans and recognition and not to integrate their societies and their lands into the Myanmar Buddhist society or the Myanmar kingdom.

Here the concept of coming together means coming in difference and not one being merge into another. The idea of Bogoke Aung San was to build a Union of Burma, an entirely new country through a state building and not to create a nation through nation-building. In the submission of the Union constitution to the AFPFL at Jubilee Hall on May 1947, Bogyoke Aung San himself has said, “When we build our new Burma, shall we build it as a Union or a Unitary State? In my opinion it will not be feasible to set up a Unitary State. We must set up a Union with a properly regulated provision to set up the rights of the ethnic nationalities.”

However Myanmar contemporary historians never emphasized this phrase and wish that the people of Burma especially the ethnic nationalities would forget it. Even the arch supporter of the Burmese Junta Dr Maung Maung points out that,

“The Union States should have their own separate constitutions, their own organ of states, viz parliament, government and Judiciary.”

It should be recollected that on the eve on the historic Panglong Conference to be exact on 11th Frb.1947 Bogyoke Aung San said, “The dreams of a unified and free Burma has always haunted me...We who are gathered here tonight are engaged in the pursuit of the same dream. We have in Burma many indigenous peoples, the Karen, the Kachin, the Shan, the Chin, the Burman and others. In other countries too there are many indigenous peoples, many races. Thus races do not have rigid boundaries. Religion is no barrier either for it is a matter of individual conscience...If we want the nation to prosper; we must pool our resources, manpower, wealth, skills and work together. If we are divided, the Karen, the Shan, the Kachin, the Chin, the Barman, the Mon and the Arakanese, each pulling in a different direction, the Union will be torn, and we will come to grief. Let us come and work together.”

Bogyoke Aung San has a clear idea of nation building and see the writing on the wall that the old concept of one religion, one race and one language had gone obsolete. He rejected the religiously orientated ethno-nationalism that misled religion with politics. He thus declared,“Religion is a matter of individual conscience, while politics is social science. We must see to it that the individual enjoys his rights, including the rights to freedom of religious beliefs and worship. We must draw clear lines between politics and religion because the two are not the same thing. If we mix religion and politics then we offend the spirit of religion itself.”

Myanmar Chauvinism

This is the essence of coming together but as everybody knows it Bogyoke Aung San and his key leaders were assassinated on 9th July 1948 and it was U Chan Htun the only proficient person whom the leaders had put their trust on him shows his Mahar Bamar mentality by betraying Bogyoke Aung San and the ethnic nationalities of Burma by completely changing his vision made it a unitary state. According to U Chan Htun’s interpretation was that the Myanmar did not form their own ethnic state, instead they combine the power of the Myanmar national State with the whole sovereign state of the Union of Burma. Thus while one ethnic group; the Myanmar control the sovereign power of the Union, that is, the administrative, legislative and judiciary of the Union of Burma, the other ethnic nationalities automatically became a vassal state of the Myanmar race. And this is exactly of what is happening today.

In order to control these ethnic nationalities it first set up the military base in Ba Htoo near Lawk Sauk in Southern Shan State, then it slowly expanded it to Nam Sang, Liang Khio, Mong Hsat in Shan states and now they have several military bases in Chin, Kachin and Karen states. Since that time the various Burmese administrations have treated the ethnic nationalities as a colonial power instead of the Union of Burma.

The government use religion as an integration process which gives rise to the resentment of the non Buddhist especially among the ethnic nationalities. This spoil the theory of unity in diversity itself Although Buddhism has been a powerful integrative force in the traditional Myanmar society and is used to start as a rallying point against the British colonialist it was of little use in the settings of a multi cultural and multi religious context especially for a multi ethnic plural society. U Nu made an attempt to achieve homogeneity by imposing religious and cultural assimilation. In 1953 the ministry of Religious and Culture was created to promote the process of assimilation and eventually in 1961 Buddhism was declared a state religion.

General Ne Win came to power in 1962 he went a step further by removing the rights and culture of the ethnic nationalities as a means of creating homogeneous unitary state. This he made it by declaring the Burmese language as the only official language to be used in the country and making Burmese as the medium of teaching in all levels of education from primary to University. No doubt the standard of education fell. He also prohibited the right for the ethnic peoples to learn their own languages. Hence national building both for U Nu and Ne Win was based on the notion of one language, one language and one religion. While U Nu opted for cultural and religious assimilation in Buddhism as a means of integration Ne Win used the national language policy and denied the rights of the ethnic nationalities as a means of creating a homogeneous society.

Hence the changing of the country’s name from Burma to Myanmar was an important step in assimilating the ethnic nationalities and it was done by force, and for the last half a century the Burmese Tatmadaw had implemented by killing the ethnic nationalities, destroying their livelihood, using rape as a weapon, waging war on ethic nationalities religion and culture by means of various persecution, destroying the identity of the ethnic nationalities.

Under the pretext of nation building, successive administrations have not only violated the basic human rights but also all categories of collective rights. Under cover of national sovereignty, the rights of self determination are rejected and in the name of national integration the right to follow different religions to practice different cultures, and to speak different languages are deprived and in the name of national assimilation the rights to uphold different identities and traditions are denied. In other words ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide has been going on for more than half a century. Either the ethnic nationalities must be integrated within the majority culture destroying their original cultural roots, or they must be denied the opportunity to enhance their cultural identity through political means. They seem to be inspired by Pakistan and Malaysia that make Muslim and Nepal that make Hindu as the state religion. Hence this is the basic philosophy of the Mahar Myanmar mentality which is the crux of the Burmese problem.

Currently there are two types of Myanmar, Democracy loving Myanmar who really believes in the Union of Burma and those Mahar Myanmar who still believe and interpret history only from their narrow nationalistic Myanmar perspective. The latter is hegemonic and myopically nationalistic believe that linear progression of Myanmar, save the colonial interlude of a century from a Buddhist kingdom originating in Pagan to today's modern nation-state are considered as a Mahar Myanmar is somewhat akin to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi theory of the superiority of the Aryan race. Hence these Mahar Myanmar did not have an ounce of the Union Spirit and is unable to accept any ethnic nationality as an equal. They construe that they are imbue with a special quality far superior than others and that they must always be leaders in every aspect of society.

On the other hand the Pyidaungsu Myanmar are those genuine Burma especially from upper Burma known as Ah Nyar of our beloved Bogyoke Aung San’s lineage that want to share equally their weal and woe with the ethnic nationalities. They are the real followers of Bogyoke Aung Sau and are desirous to build the country in a modern way, humane and want to take a place in the hall of civilized nations. They did not want to be a pariah nation.

The Burmese administrations never teach the tolerance of other religion such as the minority religions adherence of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus etc. They never mentioned that some of the heroes of Pagan dynasty such as Byatwi and Byattawere Muslim brothers. Every historian on Burma will agree that in the Pagan temples all are not dedicated to Theravada type of Buddhism only but also there are temples of Mahayana type and Hindu temples dedicated to Lord Vishnu. Again the Pagan temples were built by the Greeks and Roman architect whom the Burmese kings invited them and in many temples of Pagan the Christian cross were painted which shows that Christianity have reached the first Burmese dynasty. The first Church was built in Pagan and when the Irrawaddy River changed course it was swept away. The first Burmese Christian king was Natshinnaug, the famous poet and so on. This clearly indicates that tolerance of religion existed since that days and now with the Myanmarnization of the military Junta, no such minority religion or ethnic nationalities language were tolerated.

The idea that Myanmar are a superior race and that they have vanquished not only the ethnic nationalities but also the neighbouring countries were ingrain in them wittingly or unwittingly.

This is exactly the Mahar Myanmar spirit. Hence, the conclusion seems to be that all the ethnic nationalities must follow their lead and like it or not must agree with them, there is no such thing as consensus or self determination. They could not comprehend the Union Spirit Not only these Mahar Myanmar believe in this approach but also propagate and interpreted in such a way that the majority of the international community who scarcely know where Burma is came to have a vague idea on this approach. Unless one is a scholar in the study of Burmese history, one could not comprehend the general outline of the Burmese problem and the current crisis. In the Myanmar mindset they construe the other ethnic nationalities especially those who are residing on the hills such as Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karenni are wild heathen and such a categorization did not exclude their eventual incorporation into civilization by acculturations.

So it was not ethnic diversity but cultural practice which divided people socially not necessarily politically. The Myanmar also looks down on the Arakanese and Mon. They are not categorize as hill people as they worship the same Theravada Buddhism but the Myanmar view that these Arakanese are Mon are the conquered race and people and is not worth the political thought. What more prove is wanted when both the Arakanese and Mon were not invited to the 1947 Panglong Conference and was taken for granted as part of Myanmar. This is the essence if not crux of the Mahar Myanmar mentality.

Hence in the case of the Union of Burma, firstly it can be explained as the capture of the state by the majority Myanmar ethnic group as arising out of the impact of the introduction of the modern state system upon which the authority structure of the Myanmar society stands. This definitely, dispels and dislocated the elites and the masses of the existing system many of who belong to the ethnic nationalities.

Secondly the domination of the state by one ethnic group the Myanmar ethnic group that give rises to the “Ethnocratic Tendencies” in which the state act as an agency for that community in promoting its ethnic values as the core component of the nationalist ideology.

Thirdly, ethnic struggles are explainable as the reaction to this disruptive penetration of the peripheral communities by the weak ethnocratic state. This penetration provoked the collapse of the old authority structure existing before the 2nd world war in the British era and dislocated the old societal cohesion. It was replaced by the new emergent elites with new levels and forms. This is the apex of the ethnic nationalities struggle against the Myanmar ethnic dominate state.

Does history treat dictatorships with kindness and understanding? Will the future hold sympathy, garlands and accolades for the Junta? A military dictatorship is best viewed as a transitory phenomenon, in the manner that certain weeds flourish briefly when the topsoil is freshly disturbed. But there is a limit to how long topsoil is freshly disturbed, as against being cultivated. Sturdy plants inevitably displace the transient species. This order of succession of plant communities is immutable in nature. Ecosystem analogies are appropriate to understand the phenomena of the Junta, as its fate is also tied to the futures of disturbed conditions. The Junta is ruthlessly repressive on people and exploitative on resources. It has uncontrolled growth. If the Junta machine were compared to the thermodynamic phenomena, the primary characteristic would be that it is extremely energy intense. The generals rule is that the more energy intense. An occurrence is, the greater the problems of sustaining it will become, and the shorter the expected life-span will tend to be. The Junta’s phenomenon is a turbulence or conflagration that is doomed to burn out and to completely collapse on it. This is absolutely inevitable.

The inviolable laws of nature remind us that the Junta will implode and it is certain to leave behind unspeakable destruction and debris. That will be the challenge for the coming up nation-builders after the quasi civilian government is gone.

Studying the contemporary history of the world, country after country, there are few examples where a single ethnic group has taken control over the state and used its powers to exercise control over others. In retrospect there has been far less national building than many analysts had expected or hoped, for the process of state building has rendered many ethnic groups devoid of power or influence. The Myanmar Ethnocratic state is the current situation where the state acts as the agency of the dominant Myanmar/Burma ethnic community in term of ideologies, its policies and its resources distribution. This is because it involves three propositions.

First the Myanmar dominated ethnocratic state, is one in which recruitment to the state élite positions in the Tatmadaw, civil services and government is disproportionately and overwhelmingly from the majority Myanmar ethnic group only. Even if there is recruitment from other ethnic groups like Shan, Mon or Karen or any other ethnic race it is only after their assimilation into the dominant ethnic culture. Moreover the state elites use their positions to promote their Myanmar interest, rather than acting as either as an autonomous state bureaucracy or as representative of the socio economic class strata from where they originate.

Second, the Myanmar employs the cultural attributes and values as the core elements for the elaboration of national ideology, and the state’s choice of national symbols all derived primarily from the culture of the Myanmar ethnic majority. Thus the national identity which is employed to define the multi ethnic society is neither ethnically neutral nor multiethnic but is rather a Myanmar mono ethnic. Lucien Pye wrote, “In reflecting the communal base of political parties it tend to represent total ways of life….Nationalist movements in particular have tended to represent total ways of life because such parties are inclined to feel they have a mission to change all aspects of life within their society, even conceiving themselves as a prototype of what their entire country will become in time. Members of such movements frequently believe that their attitudes and views on all subjects will become the commonly shared attitudes and views of the entire population.”

The third attribute to the Myanmar Ethnocratic state is that the state’s institutions-its constitution its laws and its political structures- serve to maintain and reinforce the monopolization of power by the ethnic segment. Thus the channels which the state provides for participation are such as to either restrict all avenues for politics or to secure the disproportionate representation of the ethnic segment.

Whatever the part played by colonial and post-colonial history and politics, it is a fact that now ethnicity is now a serious matter. The Mahar/Myanmar and some foreign scholars endeavour to prove that monarchy as an example of central authority able to unite across ethnic and cultural divides. Incidentally this is the theory which the Burmese military dictatorship tries to impose. They try to find the abstract idea of ethnic community, that commanded primary loyalty and that a Myanmar king could act as the patron of ethnic e.g. Mon princely clients, and vice versa. That the vacuum of central authority, after the fall of the monarchy, was further exposed through British colonial policy of administering the regions in a fractured model, as contrasted with the central control that the Dutch used in governing colonial Indonesia.

"Not all Myanmar are Buddhists and yet all recognize and acknowledge the centrality of Theravada Buddhism for their Burman identity," Writes F.K.L. Chit Hlaing;

Regarding Christianity, Gravers conjectures that conversion implies political identification, and that Christianity is subsequently identified with modernity and the right to a homeland. Yet religion need not serve a unifying role, as a means of identification it can prove equally divisive.

The most prominent example of religion proving destructive within an ethnic group revolves around the 1994 split of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Organization from the Karen National Union. Though both groups go to lengths to state and show that both religions are represented and respected in their ranks, the truth remains that a significant number of Karen saw identification as Buddhist, or Christian, as conceivably more advantageous than maintaining a strict adherence to the precept of pan-Karen identity.

As the architects of modern Burma including several ethnic leaders were assassinated their vision of modern union of Burma on a just and equal state for every ethnic nationality residing in the Union of Burma was smashed. The vision and dream of the assassinated leaders were explicitly written in the first 1947 constitution where each ethnic state has its own constitution and have been enshrined in the right of the ethnic minorities to practise their culture. This was proven in the State flag where the five stars clustered around the larger star which represents the Myanmar ethnic group. This symbolizes the unity in diversity rather than assimilation and Buddhism was never been employed as a state ideology.However it should be remember that the development of a state structure dominated by the ethnic Myanmar personnel and values did not by itself precipitated the other ethnic rebellion. It was only when the state began to try to expand its control beyond the core areas of the colonial constituted a threat and launched vigorously couple with political centralization then it started the unrest.

Given the fundamental differences of belief, value and organization that connote pluralism, the monopoly of power by one cultural section is the essential precondition for the maintenance of the total society in its current form. Until and unless the new leaders have a wide vision and stop this forced Myanmarnization then there will be little or no peace in my beloved country.

Footnotes

David C William & Lian h Sakkhong; “Designing Federal Union in Burma. p20

See Bogyoke Aung San’s speech pp 306-307

U Maung Maung Burmese National Minorities 1940-1989- p170

See the speeches of Aung San also reprinted by Chao Tzang and LH Sakhong in The New Panglong Initiative, Rebuilding the Union of Burma p 13

See the speech of Aung San delivered on 20th Jan. 1946

Speeches of Bogyoke Aung San especially on 20th Jan. 1946

David C William & Lian h Sakkhong; “Designing Federal Union in Burma”. p17

Pe: Tin (Shan State) In Burmese 0d'l&ocifcspfarmif. &Srf;rlWSifhjynfaxmifpkawmifa&; p 16

Cady; John F -A History of Modern Burma p 636

Read the Temples of Pagan in any Burmese history books

Brown, David: The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia, London school of Economics p36

For example displacing of all the ethnic commanders and replace with the Myanmar ethnic group

La Raw Dr.Maran:>b> The Nation-State of Burma and the Victimization of Its Co-founders in Burma Debate Nov./Dec 1996

La Raw Dr.Maran: The Nation-State of Burma and the Victimization of Its Co-founders in Burma Debate Nov./Dec 1996

Myron; Weiner in “Political change in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.”

e.g. It change the country`s flag without telling or consent of the people.

Lucian W Pye Politics, personality and nation Building: Burma search for identity. New Haven London pp 17 18 Yale University Press

Smith: Christopher. Exploring Ethnicity in Mizzima News

Source:  Asian Tribune

Now Bo Khin Nyunt (I just call him “Bo” meaning captain in Burmese because he was just a captain that used to come and stand at my table when he was serving as PA to Col Tint Swe attached to the Prime Minister Office when I was the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the first Prime Minister Brigadier of Socialist Burma, Brigadier General Sein Win way back in 1974-77) the former much feared spy chief and the Junta’s Prime Minister, the main architect of the illogical road to democracy has spoken that, all the ethnic armed nationalities groups are very honest and truthful.

Unlike the Myanmar administrations they are not liars like Thein Sein himself who paints the prisoners of conscience as criminals and launched an all out war to the Kachin while talking peace with them. This is understandable as “Lying the very Concept of Truth” is the norm of every Myanmar administration. Now that the quasi civilian government is making some attempts to diffuse the situation with the dissidents both ethnic and pro democracy groups I have humble analyze the ethnic nationalities problem as follows:-

Marginalization

The most fundamental grievance of ethnic nationalities is their lack of influence on the political process and thus on decisions that affect their lives. Like society at large, they have been disenfranchised by a strongly centralized military state that regards them with intense suspicion. They have felt the loss of political and economic power even more acutely than the majority population as both the government and the officer corps are overwhelmingly ethnic Myanmar which are widely perceived as a foreign force. Ethnic nationalities groups consider themselves discriminated against and have openly accused successive governments of a deliberate policy of Myanmarnization. The ethnic nationalities are not only marginalized economically, but also that their social, cultural, and religious rights are being suppressed.

While many ethnic groups originally fought for independence, today almost all have accepted the Union of Burma as a fact, and merely seek increased local authority and equality within a new federal state structure. The military dictators, however, still suspect them of scheming to split the country and see this as justification for its repressive, often brutal policies in ethnic dominated areas.

Since 1988, most ethnic nationality organizations have expressed support for democracy, seeing this as their best chance to gain a voice in national politics and press for a redress of their long-standing grievances. The elite in the ethnic organizations are democrats by persuasion or regard democracy not an end in itself. Their main concern is to secure local political and administrative authority, further development of their regions, and enjoy the right to maintain and practice their language, culture and religion without constraints. This is a simple obsession of the ethnic nationalities of Burma

The strength of ethnic nationality organizations traditionally has been measured in military terms. The shift in national politics since 1988 and subsequent ceasefires, however, have transferred the main struggle from the battlefield to the political and administrative arena. The primary challenge for ethnic nationality organizations today is, therefore, to build political and organizational capacity – individually, and as a group – to ensure that they are not left out of future negotiations about the future of the Federal Union of Burma and can continue to represent the interests of their communities. They also need to help rebuild their war-torn communities and economies and re-establish a sense of normalcy and confidence in the future.

To negotiate and eventually overcome these obstacles requires vision, careful balancing of objectives and strategies, and significant implementation capacity. First and foremost perhaps, it requires a genuine commitment to move beyond narrow agendas and build a better life for local communities and the country at large. Most groups, however, lack these skills. In fact, the weaknesses and approaches of ethnic nationalities often mirror those of the central government and other local authorities. Many ethnic organizations continue to be dominated by soldiers who have little knowledge of political and social affairs or experience with relevant tools for organization and negotiation. They may have significant legitimacy rooted in the struggle for self-determination – or, in some cases, the 1990 election – but strong hierarchies and top-down approaches mean that links to local communities often are weak. There is also a dearth of people in these communities at large with relevant education and experience.

Over the past few years, some key ethnic organizations have begun to face up to these problems and start on the difficult task of building networks in long-divided communities and training capable leaders and administrators. Yet, much needs to be done and they are often seen struggling against government repression and international indifference.

Ethnic nationalities together with the Myanmar have lived in one way at a particular time, but there is no absolute ethnic nationality which persists unchanged through time. Society changes as people make decisions about how to adapt to constantly changing circumstances, including their relations with external societies. Insofar as one can apply terms of biology to social phenomenon, such change can be seen as a natural, evolutionary process. On the surface, applying this view to Burma’s current struggle for social justice seems to yield little productive insight. If culture, ethnicity and religion are always changing, and that perpetual flux is a normal characteristic of any social system, then what is the hope for resistance? Change seems to be inevitable.

History demonstrates that some cultures triumph and others fade; civilizations wax and wane over time almost as if they are living organisms. This is especially true to Burma. The Myanmar race domination over the non Myanmar races have triumph all these years and in the recorded history of Burma the major tribes like Pyu, Kanyan and Thet races has all disappeared and vanished because of the dominance of the Myanmar race. Even in the last Burmese dynasty (Konebong dynasty) the Myanmar has tried to wipe out the Mon people when by a trick king U Aung Ze Ya called the entire learned Mon monk and burnt them alive.

Contemporary history has shown that the ethnic races of such as Shan, Chin and Kachin have consented to join the Union while Karen, Karenni, Mon, Arakanese are being forced to join the Union of Burma in taking independence from Britain. But all of them were very suspicious of the Myanmar ethnic and this was compounded the action of the Tatmadaw when it launched it ethnic cleansing policy.

This could, somewhat detached interpretation can even be taken further, confounding the good intentions of those Myanmar seeking to uphold the value of cultural diversity and ethnics rights. If cultural adaptation is a strategy for dealing with change in the political and economic environment, then by opposing it do people invite hardship? Are attempts to preserve the ethnic cultures simply bound to fail, or perhaps worse, to succeed in ways which limit people’s adaptation, hence compound their suffering? Political, social and economic encroachments from all sides tell people to abandon their own ways and to accept the transitions which will align them with mainstream culture: from subsistence farming to cash-cropping, from the village to the city, from minority to majority, from the margin to the center. To the extent that this message is oppressive, it is also pragmatic, telling people what they must do to survive.

Of course, people resist this change vigorously, in myriad ways and for various reasons. Burma’s history of ethnic conflict can be framed as a struggle to define and control the nature of social change, to distinguish Myanmar from a non Myanmar and assert the relative status of each. Important events in Burmese history such as colonization, independence, growth of a national military culture, and the advent of a modern democracy movement reveal new aspects of this resistance. Political and military movements espousing ethnic nationalism are one form of organized, collective resistance. Flight, non-confrontational resistance and simple perseverance are examples of more individual or informal resistance strategies.

While none of these strategies has been particularly successful in negotiating a roadmap to social change shared by center and periphery alike, all have proved impressively resilient. Guerilla wars have dragged on for sixty years and refugees have subsisted in stateless hiatus for decades.

Despite perennial forecasts of its imminent demise, the power center has continually re-asserted its authority; despite the ethnic nationality’s claims to control social change, the periphery remains independent; despite ethnic nationalities claims to utter differentiation, the influence of the center pervades. Therefore, not only is society in constant flux, but equally enduring is the struggle to define and control this flux through resistance and adaptation. If change is inevitable, so too is dissent, and so is the consequent struggle to control the agents and outcomes of that change.

In Burma this context of change and resistance is chiefly characterized by ethnic nationalism. Rival claims to the control of social change are phrased in terms of the differentiation, history and autonomy of competing ethnic groups. The categorization of these groups is a major point of conflict. The vagaries of geographic, linguistic, cultural and historical criteria for defining ethnic categories are widely recognized both within and outside Burma. Defining ethnicity by any of these criteria has proved problematic not only for the academics but for other investigators of ethnicity, not to mention for the people in question. Nevertheless, the idea of ethnic nationality is central to social conflict. Yet, just as culture constantly changes, so does ethnicity. Political systems are an investigation of how the categories of ethnicity, specifically those of Kachin and Shan, are in them tools in a struggle for adaptation and resistance.

People adapt their identity as best they can to the political and economic forces which create change. Ethnicity is often classified by unique, exclusive cultural or hereditary traits, but there are as many exceptions to these categories as there seem to be rules. These changes are marked by shifts in physical location and the economic relationships they connote, from lowlands to mountains, from rice paddies to widens plots, and from economic autonomy to participation in a feudal hierarchy. Therefore, ethnic identity is also the product of adaptation and resistance. This formative link between identity and resistance also marks the nexus where social change in the anthropological sense of the term and the struggle for social justice

The conflict raises critical questions about the nature, role and priorities of a human rights movement. How can those who wish to effect peace in Burma reject the dangers of ethnic nationalism, while at the same time promote successful adaptation to inevitable social change? Can one extricate the interests of ethnic nationalist structures? Moreover, how can this are done without submitting to nationalist hegemony from the mainstream, especially in the face of a deliberate program of Myanmarnization?

Thus Burma’s future activists, historians, poets, artists, scientists and educators may comprise a high number of people from ethnic nationalities whose skill, intellect and access to national institutions should allow them to celebrate, rather than denigrate, cultural and linguistic diversity. They should not be forced to choose between absorption by the mainstream or social marginalization as minorities, but conditions must be drawn to enable to develop and adapt their identity as equal opportunity to other citizens. Ultimately, more answers will be found by pursuing and expanding inclusively than by mimicking the mainstream trend towards domination and exclusion.

The present peace struggle for its treatment of ethnicity and social change is a necessity and inevitable part of society. Ethnic categories, which also change over time, are subject to debate and interpretation, and indeed Professor Edmond Leach was ahead of his time by recognizing that they are at best artificial and problematic.

Concerning Burma, one must recognizes a fundamental tension between the reality of social change and nationalistic attempts to articulate and enforce an ethnic identity. This tension presents a dilemma to the peace movement, which asserts that human dignity should not be seconded to the inevitability of social change, and seeks to challenge the calculated absorption of the periphery into the mainstream of Burmese society. An aspect of social change is free will, the opportunity to make autonomous choices. This autonomy represents basic human rights about what language people want to speak, what clothes they want to wear, how they want to live and how they wish to identify themselves. Violence, repression and economic exploitation all intrusions into universal and inalienable human rights are what threaten human dignity and survival. Where an international peace movement intersects with Burma’s ethnic rights struggle, it must choose its path based on what people want and need to adapt, survive and live in dignity, rather than on a prevailing nationalist ideology. Ethnic aspirations are difficult to understand; pointing out its many complications and paradoxes makes it no easier. Nevertheless, to make the right choices the peace movement must be aware of all the resources available to it.

The Importance of Ethnicity

On 23 May 1947, less than three months before his death, Bogyoke Aung San gave a speech which made his thoughts on democracy very clear. He distinguished ‘true’ from ‘sham’ democracy. He said,

“Only true democracy can work for the real good of the people, real equality of status and opportunity for every one irrespective of class or race or religion or sex. Not every democracy is true democracy. Some are imperfect democracies concealing in democratic guise the dictatorship of the capitalist class. True democracy alone must be our basis if we want to draw up our constitution with the people as the real sovereign and the people's interest as the primary consideration. Democracy alone is the basis upon which the real progress of a nation can be built.”

But lamentably none of the Myanmar leaders follow his vision. During 1948- 1958, the government under U Nu was at first running pretty smoothly, even thought being pressurized by the Myanmar nationalists. U Nu changed the Constitution. By 1961 the Saophas realized that the Union was not only totally under the control of the Myanmar but becoming under the Military; therefore, the question of “ to secede or not to secede “ came to be an issue amongst Shan leaders including U Htoon Myint who was anti- Saophas. This was not a crime, it was a right provided by the Constitution (The Shan State had the right to secede after ten years, 1958). Hence the secession issue did not arise out of conspiracies by the Shan leaders; it originated from real grievances.

Bogyoke Aung San’s daughter, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was shocked to discover the military’s actions of injustice, subjugation of the people, the shooting of thousands of students and the heinous human rights violations practiced against the ethnic nationalities. She exposed that the method used by the military in ruling the country was not what her father had wanted. By this exposure she damaged the military regime’s legitimacy. This is one, if not the main, reason why the military generals especially Than Shwe hated her so much and is so afraid of her

To move forward there has to be National Reconciliation of all nationalities coming together at a round table. The talk has to be built on truth, trust and transparency. In a country like Burma there has to be an understanding of the principle of territorial integrity and fundamental respect for diversity, and different peoples’ wishes for freedom, equality and justice. In other words there must be a Second Panglong Conference which she has called.

To have a genuine democracy in Burma then dictatorship and Tatmadaw has to be abolished for good as it has no place in the modern and civilized world and in its place must be the people’s army Pyidaungsu Tat, the Federal army. In the United States is that: the whites constitute 80.1% of the United States population (2006 estimate); whereas, approximately 60 percent of the population in Burma is ethnic Myanmar and the present military regime is overwhelmingly dominated by ethnic Myanmar.

If a black person who belongs to only 12.8% of a country's population can be given a chance to become the President of the United States and leader of the free world, Burma should give an equal opportunity to potential leaders from the ethnic groups which make about 40% of the country's population. Ethnicity plays a vital role in Burma's politics. It is participation and inclusiveness that make a nation strong, and Burma is not an exception. Should Burma fail to understand this reality, the socio-political conflicts will continue to persist even after the restoration of democracy. Barack Obama's election not only gives a new hope to millions of Americans, but also energizes the ethnic nationalities groups of Burma. Genuine national reconciliation and nation-building must precede the restructuring of the state.

The neighboring countries especially ASEAN China and India because of their selfish motives under the beautifully coined word of Constructive Engagement Policy have help prolong the military administrations in Burma and only now because of the punitive actions of the West that the rottenness of the dictatorship was reveal now should help Burma to be on the right road. Their selfish motive indirectly encouraging the regime with “Containing Balkanization” in Burma could easily lead to a resumption of localized arm conflicts again. Then as usual military-owned businesses, Junta cronies, foreign investors and traders, and ethnic drug lords and elites plunder the natural resources of the ethnic states, local ethnic populations will continue to be denied economic opportunities and the ethnic nationalities states will also see their environment further destroyed by greedy businesses and bad governance.

It is now up to the leaders of the ethnic groups to decide whether they will betray the 60-year long struggle for their ethnic people or stand together with an effective strategy to fight for equal ethnic rights. The rest will be history.

Last but not the lease is that the architect of 8888 uprising Khin Nyunt and his band of former Military Intelligence are let lose again coined by most Burmese as hell hound at large and by his conversation we know that he want to come back into the scene. This is a very dangerous trend both for the ethnic nationalities and the prodemocracy movements as he could twist both the international community and the ethnic nationalities. He together with Than Shwe should be standing in the gallows if real democracy and ethnic equality is to be achieved. We still has to see how Burma is unfolding.

- Asian Tribune -