Unconventional Thoughts & Commentaries

Tanawthari Junior College

2010-07-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5N7NZzzdkg&feature=player_embedded

Letter to Kawekalu Editor

2010-05-15T11:14:00.000-07:00

click here to read in Karen - http://kwekalu.net/opinio/kapi.html

Dear Kwekalu Editors,

Since you and Violet Cho recently wrote an article about Karen Gay issue in general and its implications to the Klo & Kweh Music Team in particular on Kwekalu Web Site, I would like to let you know my thoughts.

Personally, and this is strictly personally, I do not have any problem with someone's sexual orientation unless his or her individual right infringes upon mine.

However, I reserve the right to choose who I will associate or dissociate myself with in accordance with my value, belief and/or character. I will respect the reverse as well - that is, I have no problem if someone does not want to associate himself or herself with me because of his or her value, belief and/or character.

Just as I will not compel upon others my belief, value and/or characters, I will not allow others to compel upon me to embrace his or her value, belief and/or character.

Hopefully this clarifies some confusion.

As one of the founders of Klo & Kweh Foundation, I have to let you know that Klo & Kweh has its very specific objectives and is not funded by any tax-payer's money, so it reserves - as it has - the right to choose who it wants to associate or dissociate with based not only on its core objectives but on the values, belief and characteristics it subscribes to.

That said, during the last Klo & Kweh trip, we did not invite any previous Klo & Kweh singers who had left Rangoon and are currently living in Thailand. For example, Naw Eh Wah, Saw Eh Ler Tha, and Naw Merday Say were not invited to participate in this trip either simply because the trip was designed to bring those Klo & Kweh members out of the country and have much needed fellowship with their fellow Karens and fans in Thailand.

No other Klo & Kweh member made any complaint about not being invited to this trip, but the one who complained happen to be a homosexual Karen man, and yet we cannot treat him differently than we treat others.

We have many important tasks ahead, and there are many human rights abuses that are taking place on daily basis inside Burma and I have not heard a single Karen homosexual man stands up and fights against those human rights abuses.

Klo & Kweh has done great things in relief works after Cyclone Nargis, and to date, we have managed to provide scholarships to more than 800 young Karen high school students in Burma. People don't write or complain anything about it. My only point is that we are very busy doing many other important things that impact thousands of Karen people's lives. Like we have stated before, the Klo & Kweh has to operate in a very sensitive and restricted social and political environment inside the country. We simply did not have enough resources or time to respond to any undue attention repeatedly “demanded” by a Karen homosexual man.

Allow me to repeat this: we have no problem whatsoever with anyone’s sexual orientation; all we want is our right to do our own things to accomplish our stated objectives in accordance with our own principles and values.

Thank you.

Saw Kapi
Founding Member
The Klo & Kweh Foundation

The Klo & Kweh Foundation

2010-05-05T13:54:00.000-07:00

Announcement: Klo & Kweh Music Team

Founded in 2001 under the auspicious of the Klo & Kweh Foundation, the Klo & Kweh Music Team is one of the best known musical groups in the country, especially among the seven millions Karen people living in Burma and the world over. Its main objective is to preserve Karen culture and literature and promote intercultural exchange through music. It is closely affiliated with the Karen Baptist Convention and primarily founded on Baptist Christian root and yet it aims to serve audience of all kinds without any religious bias or discrimination.

The Klo & Kweh Music Team remains dedicated to its original mission – to preserve and promote Karen culture and literature through music. We believe in human dignity, individual liberty and personal right to pursuit of happiness. We will not officially condone or condemn any individual’s moral character and/or behavior. Nor will we let ourselves be distracted or our collective mission disrupted by any individual’s self-interest.

The Klo & Kweh Music Team has very limited resources and has to operate in a very restricted environment. Therefore, it will only respond, in the order of their importance, to issues that bear reasonable relevance to its core mission. The Klo & Kweh Foundation has no plan or desire to respond to every criticism leveled against it.

The Klo & Kweh Foundation

The Same Old Road to Nowhere

2010-04-01T09:00:00.000-07:00

By NAW MAY OO

from The Irrawaddy, Thursday, April 1, 2010

The 2008 Constitution and the upcoming election guarantee a
continuation of Burma’s longest civil war, and the only hope for a
peaceful Burma is to constitutionally accommodate ethnic diversity.
Beginning with independence, Burma has a history of ignoring critical
issues and interests. In 1947, Aung San and his Anti Fascist People’s
Freedom League (AFPFL) tried to aggressively secure Burma’s national
independence from the British by securing the ethnic minorities’
agreement to join a proposed Union of Burma.

As a result, the Panglong Agreement was signed designed to reward
Burma with independence. The 1947 Constitution was drafted for an
independent Burma and ratified in 1948. In theory, a federal union
(Pyidaungsu) and a democratic government was established.
The newly independent Burma, however, was understandably fragile.
First, the young country was not prepared to implement democratic
principles. Second, the promised democratic union never came to be,
and the ethnic groups who agreed to join the non-existent union
rebelled.

A decade of constitutionalism and electoralism gave way to the first
military coup d’état in 1958 and then to the more permanent military
takeover in 1962.

A careful look into the handling of the ethnic discontent would
indicate that the government deliberately avoided constitutional
discussion which might have helped to reach a peaceful resolution.
Instead, the fledgling parliamentary democracy regime turned to the
army (Tatmadaw) for help in quelling perceived threats from ethnic
groups.

A second Constitution (1974) was ratified to affirm the first military
coup of 1962, through which the military government transformed itself
to civilian rule by adopting the “Burmese Way of Socialism.” The Burma
Socialist Program Party (BSPP) ruled until the demise of the party in
1988. Now, the third Constitution (2008) paves the way to affirm the
second military rule, planning to transform itself to a civilian
government through upcoming elections.

What will be the outcome of the 2008 Constitution and attempts to
transform the ruling military leadership into a civilian government?
While we cannot say for certain, we can point to distinctions between
this constitution and prior constitutional efforts. We also can
identify key issues, which may present challenges and obstacles for
the future based on Burma’s past.

There are substantive differences between the 1947 Constitution and
the 2008 Constitution. But, there are also striking similarities
between the two documents.

The 1947 and 1974 Constitutions

An inadequate basis for federalism in a multi-ethnic society is one of
the factors contributing to the failure of democracy. The government’s
consistent refusal to address the question of ethnic diversity
constitutionally is the fundamental root-cause of the ongoing civil
war in the country.

Generally speaking, ethnic discontent began with the broken promises
following the drafting of new constitution in 1947. Minorities joined
or agreed to join Pyidaungsu (the Union) based upon the premise that
all members of the Union would adhere to the federal principles and
thus enjoy full-membership in the Union. Although the word “federal”
never appeared in either of the Constitutions, both documents
mentioned repeatedly the equivalent Burmese word “Pyidaungsu.”
Some said that the 1947 Constitution established a federal framework
by establishing a bicameral national legislature and provisions that
spelled out minority rights. The territories of four ethnic groups,
the Karen, Karenni, Shan and Kachin, were recognized and each was
designated a separate state in the Constitution but with unequal
status. For example, while Shan State and Karenni State were
constitutionally granted the right to secession, while the other
states were not. Moreover, spelling out the right to secession in the
Constitution is operationally meaningless.

The 1974 Constitution continued to term Burma as Pyidaungsu or the
Union. Some analysts say it also provided a federal theory. For
example, ministerial Burma was divided into seven states and seven
divisions with little real power and autonomy. But, the same
Constitution provided for a unicameral legislature and centralized all
powers even further and entrenched the Burma Socialist Programme Party
(BSPP) as the only legal political party in the country.
The same constitution continued to recognize the Burmese language the
only official language, and prohibited the teaching, publishing and
printing of any other ethnic languages by law.

The 2008 Constitution

It is normal to expect that the constitution would address the
problems of democratization and the recognition of Burma’s ethnic and
linguistic plurality, principally by engaging these stakeholders in a
dialogue regarding reconciliation. The general understanding is that
most civil, armed or unarmed, disputes are about 1) the structure of
the state, 2) control over natural resources, and 3) the question of
groups’ right to self-determination, or some combination thereof.
These issues are most commonly matters necessarily dealt with in a
constitution and constitutional laws governing a country. It is then
natural to expect that the coming into effect of a new constitution
can mean the end of civil (often armed) conflict. And, a constitution
producing this sort of result ought to be comprised of the
negotiations and debates between the stakeholders.

However, such a dialogue and collaborative process were largely
forsaken by the current regime. The constitutional drafters failed to
actively involve the participation of the people governed, throughout
the process of deciding and drafting the Constitution. on the
contrary, the upcoming 2010 election appears only to affirm two
things: first, the hegemony of Burma’s Armed Forces and second, the
guaranteed continuation of the current civil war.

The 2008 Constitution acknowledges the multi-ethnic character of
Burma. The constitution gives token significance to the separation of
power between the branches of government, spheres of government and
the military but practically provides little to no mechanism in which
this division can occur.

Constitutional law experts observe that the sub-national governments
at states and local levels have very little effective powers and
almost no self-government as they are subordinated to the Pyidaungsu
legislature and especially to the executive. In effect, regardless of
the repetitious use of the term Pyidaungsu or the Union, Burma is by
no means a federal state under 2008 Constitution.

What should bother all citizens most, regardless of their ethnicity,
is the way in which the 2008 Constitution addresses civil rights. The
way rights are formulated and the limitations placed upon them are
even more problematic. The people of Burma will, if at all, enjoy
their most fundamental human rights at the pity of the regime.

The Upcoming Election

Will this attempt at legalizing elections and forsaking the question
of minorities succeed? Or will Burma continue to repeat the
well-established patterns of its past? The Burmese military regime is
moving forward with a plan to legitimize and solidify military rule.
The recent election law released by the Burmese regime is shocking to
many, given the regime’s persistent rejection of concerns of the
people of Burma and the global community.

As for Burmese expatriates, experience tells us that the military has
repeatedly used elections and the constitution as a platform to
shepherd in new military leadership under the guise of reform.
As for ethnic minorities, we sense the impact of an unfolding
political fiasco. We are haunted by the ghost of our country’s
history. Twenty years after staging the coup, the Burmese military
once again launched another reform effort through the 2008
Constitution. Bold public proclamations declare the government will
now transform itself to a civilian government via an election in 2010.
Once again will this be a shuffling of rank, responsibility and
fiefdoms?

Burma is at a crossroads, the country could advance, or fall back into
the well established pattern of military rule and human rights abuses.
How the United States and the United Nations respond to the upcoming
election and the Burmese regime could probably impact the course of
the election, the Burmese Constitution, and set a precedent for the
rest of the world.

The actions taken by the Burmese regime are simply a repeat and
repackaging of old tactics and without a new approach, the country
could easily fall back into its historic conflict patterns and civil
war.

Naw May Oo is a doctoral student writing her dissertation on
constitutional design and federalism for post conflict states with a
concentration on Burma at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and
a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Democracy.

Reconciliation Needed for a United Burma

2010-03-16T05:27:00.000-07:00

from Irrawaddy, March 16, 2010

by Naw May Oo

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.

Politics and history often intertwine, and inextricably connect, as individuals advocate for beliefs and ideas important to them. When our 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.

A united Burma requires a spirit of togetherness and reconciliation from all of us. In this spirit, I respectfully call for more political sensitivity in all who are active in the movement for change.

I believe that what is most important is individual conversion and change of heart, to recognize people first and foremost in their humanity, and to respect and to treat with dignity.

However, recent articles in The Irrawaddy have caused me to pause and reflect on the condition of the movement for change in Burma.

After the military coup on Sept. 18, 1988, my brother and three friends, university students, came to my mother for help and somewhere to hide. They were all university students in their junior and senior years.
My mother helped smuggle them out to safety, and we subsequently heard they had reached a Karen National Union base.

Two months later, we also left, traveling through the mountains to the Salween River and a village called Kawmoorah, where students from all over Burma were gathering and where the All Burma Students' Democratic Front began to take shape. For many, it was their first encounter with Karen people.

As more students arrived, the nature of these first encounters changed. It quickly became apparent just how ill prepared both sides were for what we were heading into.

For centuries, Karen had lived in the region the students were now fleeing to and the strength of the KNU offered them a sort of safe-haven. once safe, however, we soon learned about the apparent differences in our goals and ways of life.

The Karen had farmed, established logging and other business practices in order to support a society. For the Karen, the KNU territories were not a temporary safe zone, but rather an integral part of life, history and culture.

Many Burmese students found the experience unfamiliar, challenging, and in some cases unbearable. Rural life was a far cry from a familiar routine of university study.

For these students, the KNU and the shelter they offered were temporary, stop-gap measures necessary only to regroup and work for political change back "home."

The KNU, for its part, was caught off guard. There were differing views on how to receive these fleeing students. And there were practical as well as political and psychological concerns.

The students expected to be received with honor, for they were “fighting for a just cause.” They failed to recognize that the KNU and the Karen people had been fighting for “a just cause” for 40 years.

In time, the divergence between these goals created friction and sometimes conflict.

I recall well the case of one of my brother’s friends, Ko Win Myint, who broke off his final year of study at the Government Technical Institute and took up a new life in the jungles of Karen State.

Like many of his friends, Ko Win Myint earned pocket money working in the lucrative logging business, which was controlled by the 20th battalion of the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA).

Life in the jungle proved too difficult for Ko Win Myint, who told friends that when he had saved enough money he would return home.

News of his intentions reached the KNLA battalion leadership, which looked with concern at student movements that could compromise security.

Ko Win Myint disappeared and it has never been established what happened to him. While the mystery may never be cleared up, the issue of most concern is the manner in which we all reacted to it.

Did we hope for the best in each other? Did we acknowledge the trials and tribulations we all faced? I think perhaps at times, we let the stress, our fears and panic get the better of us. We doubted each other and mistrusted those we called "friends."

For many students fleeing to KNU territory, the jungle and the Karen way of life was a challenge.

Expectations, often unshared ideals and a lack of preparation combined to make it especially difficult.

The contrast between the Karen villagers and the fleeing Burmese students was vast and striking. As unprepared as the Karens were at that time, the Burmese students, mostly city-dwellers, were equally unprepared to meet their native brothers who looked different and who did not even speak Burmese.

The government preached a united Burma, a Pyidaungsu, or “Union.” Yet, in reality, life was vastly different from the image painted by the regime.

Naïve stereotypes persisted on both sides. Burmese students thought the Karen were savages who did not understand the customs of hospitality and fled before them.

They did not realize that the only previous people who spoke the Burmese language loudly and entered these villages had always been members of the Burmese armed forces, the Tatmadaw. And every time the Burmese soldiers came, they destroyed villages, killing and pillaging. Little wonder that the Karen fled whenever Burmese visitors called.

In one essay in The Irrawaddy, the author—one of the highest ranking members of the ABSDF leadership—recalled the failure of the judiciary system within the KNU, which he termed “Karen style justice.”

Never in my student days in Burma, nor from my parents who were both educated in Burma, have I heard of or used the term “Burmese/Burman style justice.” We did not understand many things about the persecution of ethnic groups in Burma, but we understood that it was not “Burmese/Burman style justice.”

The ABSDF, in many regards, holds a unique position as a grass-roots organization that could potentially ease the tension between the Burmese/Burman and the Karen villagers.

If anybody should be sympathetic to the plight of Karen villagers, it is the ABSDF. If anybody should understand the ethnic tension a little better than city-based political parties, it is the ABSDF.

The time spent by ABSDF members among Karen villagers has created the opportunity for this organization to become an agent of peace and reconciliation—between the Karen and Burmans, but also perhaps within the country as a whole.

Mitigating the concerns of the Karens and the Burmans, reconciliation and co-existence are precisely the elusive goal and vision for a united Burma, which has hitherto existed only as a dream.

The military regime has opted for the imposition of a fantasy, unrelated to the reality of life and perpetuated through hatred, mistrust and fear.

As I look back at our movement, at the trials and joys that we have shared, I must ask myself: what course will be adopted by the ABSDF—or, for that matter, any Burmese political organization?

Will the organizations recognize the accomplishments, camaraderie and many successes we have shared? Will they commit themselves unconditionally to the dream of a united Burma? Will they work for this dream, despite the fears, challenges and hurts we all have encountered? Or, will they continue to operate merely as a network of hatred?

When some former ABSDF members despondently complained that the ethnic minorities “were not fighting for democracy,” I wondered what the Burmese/Burman political leadership means when it talks about democracy.

If wanting to elect leaders to represent you, if demanding equality and fair representation is not democracy, then what is?

My Burmese/Burman counterparts like to portray ethnic minorities as “narrow-minded nationalists.” However, more often than not, they demonstrate their limited view of democracy, which is narrowly defined to fit Burmese understanding.

The Burmese/Burman political leadership has long been preaching national unity and coexistence, but it has not been sufficiently putting these concepts into practice.

The people of Burma, especially my generation, grew up in a bogus Union that emerged from the 1947 Constitution. Looking now at the 2008 Constitution, the Union we dream of does not appear in the slightest form.

For a country as divided as Burma, a peaceful coexistence must be voluntary. For this to happen, every single citizen at every level plays an important role.

With this in mind, I respectfully call for a more political sensitivity on the part of all my Burmese/Burman counterparts who are active in a movement for change. Accepting and embracing this challenging task will be a significant first step toward the genuine reconciliation and reunification we all dream of. That hold the promise of an exciting future, one that I am committed to working for.

Naw May Oo is a doctoral student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, writing her dissertation on constitutional design and federalism for post conflict states with a concentration on Burma.

Talks on Burma at the University of Maryland

2010-02-10T08:33:00.000-08:00

Friends,

I just want to share with you about a special talks on Burma at University of Maryland - College Park, where I work. Those of you who live in the area can join and take part in discussion. It is open to the public, though mainly students from the School of Public Policy will attend.

Come join if you have time.

Saw Kapi

Subject : Beyond the Classroom presents "
When : Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Where : 1103 BioScience Research Building
Event Type(s) : Seminar

How do we understand the possibilities for promoting change in Burma today?
Burma is ruled by a military-led government that refused to recognize the landslide electoral victory of the National League for Democracy in 1990. Aung San Suu Kyi, who led Burma's pro-democracy movement and received the Noble Peace Prize for her efforts, has been detained by the government for 14 of the last 20 years. In 2007, Buddhist monks led nonviolent demonstrations, known as the "Saffron Revolution," to protest the government's policies that led to a military crackdown. What are key insiders trying to do to promote political reform in Burma? What is the international community doing to support human rights and change in Burma? With new parliamentary elections expected to be held later this year, what steps are necessary to ensure that meaningful political change occurs in Burma? Ian Holliday is Dean of Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science at The University of Hong Kong.

Website: www.BeyondtheClassroom.umd.edu

For more information, contact:
Dr. James V. Riker
Beyond the Classroom Living & Learning Program
+1 301 314 6622
jriker@umd.edu
www.BeyondTheClassroom.umd.edu

ပညာတင့္မွ အမ်ိဳးတင့္မည္

2010-02-05T10:16:00.000-08:00

ပညာတင့္မွ အမ်ိဳးတင့္မည္

ဲဒီေဆာင္းပါးတိုကိုသေဘာက်တဲ့အတြက္ စာေရးသူေစာကေညာ ရဲ ့ ေစာလင္းနက္စ္ blog မွကူးယူထားျခင္းျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း အသိေပးလိုပါတယ္ .... (ေစာကပီ)

ျမန္မာ ပုဆိုးဝတ္တာ ကုလားအေမြလို႕ ေဒါက္တာသန္းထြန္း က ေျပာလို႕သိရတယ္။ အဲ့ဒီေတာ့ ကရင္ေတြကသေဘာက်တယ္ ကုလားအေမြ ခိုးထားတဲ့ေကာင္ေတြပါကြာဆိုျပီး ဟားတိုက္ၾကတယ္ေလ၊ သိပ္ျပီးလဲသေဘာမက်ၾကနဲ႕ ကိုယ့္လူတို႕ေရ ... ကရင္ပုဆိုးဝတ္တာကေရာ ကုလားအေမြလား ျမန္မာေတြ ဆီကေန အတုျမင္အတတ္သင္လား ဘယ္သူ႕အေမြလဲ၊ ဒီလိုေမးရင္ေတာ့ စိတ္မဆိုးနဲ႕ေနာ္ ဘာလို႕လဲဆိုေတာ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ ကရင္သမိုင္းကို ဒီေလာက္ထိလိုက္တဲ့ ကရင္လူမ်ဳိးဘာလို႕မရွိေသးတာလဲ။ ျမန္မာလူမ်ဳိးေတြက ျမန္မာသမိုင္းကို ပုဆိုးဝတ္တာက အစ လိုက္ႏိုင္ၾကျပီ။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ ဘယ္ကေနဆင္းသက္လာလဲဆိုတာ အခုထိ တစ္ေယာက္တစ္ေပါက္ ျဖစ္ေနတုန္းဘဲ။

တစ္ေယာက္က ဗာဗူလံု ျမိဳ႕ကလို႕ေျပာလိုေျပာ၊ ဂ်ဴးလူမ်ဳိး (၁၂) မ်ဳိးထဲက အကိုအၾကီးဆံုး အမ်ဳိး ရူဘင္မ်ဳိးလို႕ေျပာလိုေျပာ၊ ေနာက္က်ေတာ့လဲ အေရွ႕အလယ္ပိုင္းကလိုလို အီဂ်စ္ကလိုလိုနဲ႕ ေနာက္ဆံုးေတာ့ တိဘက္ကိုျဖတ္ တရုတ္ကိုေက်ာ္ျပီးျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံထဲ ေရာက္လာခဲ့ၾကတယ္လို႕ဘဲ ဂိတ္ဆံုးသြားေရာ။ ဒီၾကားထဲ တခ်ဳိ႕က ထိုင္းဘက္ကပါတ္ဝင္တာတို႕ အိႏိၵယဘက္က ပါတ္ဝင္တာတို႕က ရွိေသးတယ္။ ဦးပညာေရးထားတဲ့ ကရင္ရာဇဝင္ဆိုက်ေတာ့လဲ ျဗမၼာၾကီး ေလးဦးကေန အစခ်ည္လိုက္တာကို ဖတ္ရေတာ့ စိတ္ပါညစ္သြားတယ္။ ျမန္မာေတြလဲ ဘယ္ကဆင္းလာသလဲ ဆိုတာကို အတိအက်မသိသလို႕ ကရင္ေတြ လည္းဘယ္ကဆင္းလာသလဲဆိုတာ အတိအက်မသိပါဘူး။

ဒါေပမဲ့ ျမန္မာအစ တေကာင္းက (ျမန္မာသမိုင္းအေျခခံမူလတန္းတြင္သင္ခဲ့ရသည္) လို႕ အယူအလြဲမ်ဳိးကို ကရင္ေတြ လဲမျဖစ္ဖို႕ အေရးၾကီးပါတယ္။ ေတာ္ေတာ္ၾကာ ကရင္အစ တိဘက္ကျဖစ္ေနဦးမယ္ ႏိုင္ငံေတာ္အလံျခင္းကလဲ ခပ္တူတူ လူပံုျခင္းကလဲ ခပ္ဆင္ဆင္ ျဖစ္ေနတာကိုး။ ဒါေတြကေတာ့ မတုိးတက္ေသးတဲ့ေခတ္မွာျဖစ္ခဲ့ျပီးျပီ အခု တိုးတက္တဲ့ ေခတ္ IT ေခတ္ကိုေရာက္ေနျပီ ကရင္ေတြ မၾကိဳးစားၾကေသဘူး။ လက္ရွိ ထက္မ်က္ထြန္းေပါက္တဲ့ကရင္ေတြ ရွိပါတယ္ ဒါေပမဲ့ လက္ခ်ဳိးေရလို႕ရတယ္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ကရင္လူငယ္ေတြ အေပ်ာ္အပါ အေသာက္အစားနဲ႕ ဘဲ အခ်ိန္ကုန္ေနၾကတယ္။ အထူသျဖင့္ ကရင္လူမ်ဳိးေတြမွာ ေျပာစမတ္ျဖစ္ေနတာ အရက္ပါ။ လံုးဝမေသာက္နဲ႕ လို႕ မေျပာလိုပါ ေသာက္တတ္ရင္ေသာက္ပါ ဘဝပ်က္တဲ့အထိေတာ့ မေသာက္သင့္ဘူး။ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ ရွိေနတဲ့ ကရင္လူမ်ဳိးအမ်ားစုဟာ ဖိႏွိပ္ခံ လူတန္းစားဘဝမွာ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕လူမ်ဳိးေတြ ၾကိဳးစားျပီး ထိုးေဖာက္ရမဲ့အစား မၾကိဳးစားဘူး။

ျမန္မာေတြ အႏိုင္က်င့္တယ္ မတရားဘူးဘဲေအာ္ေနတယ္။ ေရွ႕ဆက္အႏို္င္မက်င့္ခံရေအာင္ ငါတို႕ဘယ္လိုလုပ္မလဲ မစဥ္းစားဘူး။ အႏိုင္က်င့္တာ က်င့္ျခင္တိုင္းက်င့္လို႕မရပါဘူး ကိုယ္ကသူ႕အေပၚကဆို သူကိုယ့္ကို္ ဘယ္လိုအႏိုင္က်င့္မလဲ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ ရွိတဲ့ ဗမာလူဦးေရနဲ႕ ကရင္လူဦးေရ မကြာပါဘူး။ ဒါကို သူမ်ားအေပၚကိုေရာက္ေအာင္မၾကိဳးစားဘဲ ခပ္ေပါ့ေပါ့ဘဲေနေနၾကတယ္ လူၾကားေကာင္းေအာင္ငါတုိ႕ကရင္လူမ်ဳိးက ေရာက္ရဲ တင္းတိမ္တတ္တယ္ဆိုတဲ့စကားနဲ႕ ျပန္လည္တုန္႕ျပန္တတ္ၾကတယ္။ တကယ္ေတာ့ ဒါဟာ ခပ္ညံညံ အေတြးေတြပါ။ ပညာသင္ခြင့္ရေနတဲ့ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ တေတြ ၾကိဳးစားရမယ္။ ဒါမွကိုယ့္လူမ်ဳိးဂုဏ္ကိုယ္ျပန္ျမင့္ႏိုင္မွာပါ။ျမန္မာစကားပံုတစ္ခုလို ပညာျမွင့္မွ အမ်ဳိးတင့္မည္ ဆိုတာမ်ဳိးေပါ့။ အခုေတာ့ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ လူမ်ဳိးအမ်ားစုဟာ ပညာမတတ္မဟုတ္ဘဲ ရိုးရိုး ေတာင္သူလယ္သမားဘဝကေန အခုထိ မတက္ႏိုင္ေသးပါဘူး၊ ဗမာ မင္းေတြ ႏွိပ္စက္လို႕ ထြက္ေျပးေနတဲ့ဘဝကေနအခုထိမလြတ္ႏိုင္ေသးပါဘူး။

အစၥေရး ကိုယ္ႏိုင္ငံကိုယ္ျပန္တည္ေထာင္သြားတာကို ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕လူမ်ဳိးေတြ အတုယူသင့္တယ္။ ဘာလို႕ျပန္လည္တည္ေထာင္ႏိုင္လဲဆိုေတာ့ အဓိကအေၾကာင္းအရင္းကေတာ့ ပညာတတ္နဲ႕ လူခ်မ္းသာမ်ားလို႕ဘဲ။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕လည္းကိုယ့္ႏိုင္ငံကိုယ္ျပန္လည္တည္ေထာင္ျခင္ရင္ေတာ့ ပညာတတ္နဲ႕လူခ်မ္းသာေတြ ကရင္လူမ်ဳိးထဲမွာမ်ားဖို႕လို႕ပါတယ္။ ခ်မ္းသာဖို႕ဆိုတာလဲ ပညာတတ္မွ ျဖစ္ႏို္င္မဲ့ အရာတခုပါ။ ပညာမတတ္ဘဲ သူေဌးျဖစ္တဲ့သူ ဆိုတာ မရွိပါဘူး။ ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ လူဦးေရအမ်ားဆံုးတိုင္းရင္းသားက ကရင္ လူမ်ဳိးေတြပါ။ မြန္လူမ်ဳိးေတြကို ၾကည့္ပါ ကရင္ျပည္နယ္နဲ႕ ေဘးျခင္းကပ္မွာ ေနေပမဲ့လည္း ပညာတတ္ေတြ မြန္လူမ်ဳိးမွာမ်ားစြာကို ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ျမင့္ေတြႏိုင္ပါတယ္။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕လူမ်ဳိးမွာ ပညာတတ္ေတြ အရမ္း ကိုနည္းလြန္းပါတယ္ ဒါဟာအင္မတန္ဝမ္းနည္းစရာပါ။

ဒါေၾကာင့္ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႕ ဖိနွိပ္ခံ ဘဝေတြကေန ေဖာက္ထြက္ႏိုင္ဖို႕ တခုတည္းေသာ နည္းလမ္းက တျခားသူေတြထက္သာေအာင္ၾကိဳးစားဖို႕ နည္းလမ္းတစ္ခုတည္းသာ ရွိပါေတာ့သည္။

စာေရးသူေစာကေညာ ရဲ ့ ေစာလင္းနက္စ္ blog မွကူးယူထားျခင္းျဖစ္ပါသည္....

A Tribute to My Mentor

2010-02-02T18:40:00.000-08:00

Naw Louisa Benson Craig: A tribute to my mentor

It was in 1994 when I first met Aunty Louisa in Los Angeles at a Burma campaign event. She was surprised to see me with Karen dress at a political event in LA. Soon after that meeting, she made an arrangement for me to work with the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma in its Washington, DC office.

A year later, we met again in Bakersfield, California, when Gen. Bo Mya visited the United States. Then, at Mae Tha Raw Hta Ethnic Nationalities Seminar. Every time we meet with Karen leaders, she took every opportunity available to introduce young blood to the KNU leadership. She has a big heart for the Karen people.

A long time supporter of Karen resistance movement, a former Miss Burma, and a tireless campaigner for the rights of Burma's ethnic nationalities, Naw Louisa Benson Criag passed away on February 2, 2010 in California. She is my foremost political mentor. I am sorry that I did not have a chance to say "thanks" to her in person before she leaves this world.

Saw Kapi

I wish you a Happy Karen New Year

2009-12-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

KAREN NEW YEAR 2749: New Year in a New Place and a New Phase of Life

Please accept my best wishes for the New Year. This is a season when we, the Karen people, should take stock of our past, while we also plan for the future. Like many other nations in the world, we need to constantly assess our heritage while moving forward in a new environment, and often in a new country. One of the great symbols of our people's heritage is the collective celebration of our Karen New Year day.

The recognition of Karen New Year Day implies, at least indirectly, that the Karen people of Burma are one of the earliest settlers to the land. In their deliberation on determining Karen Era, Karen leaders decided to start counting the chronology from the time Karen people completed their second phase of migration to the land now known as Burma, BC 739.

The Karen New Year celebrations in some ways are expressions of collectivism among the different tribes of Karen people, because it is recognized and celebrated by all Karens (Sqaw, East Pwo and West Pwo) regardless of their creeds and linguistic affiliation. Of the many holidays that the Karen people celebrate annually, only the New Year celebration brings together Karens of all different backgrounds.

Fifteen years ago who would have imagined that we would be celebrating Karen New Year in such place as Omaha (NE), St. Paul (MN), Utica (NY) and Philadelphia (PA)? Although there were some Karens residing in the United Sates at that time, the number of Karen living abroad was not significant enough to establish a strong sense of community. But this situation has changed almost entirely within the last decade. Thousands of Karens, young and old, have left their homeland and immigrated to several countries in Asia, Europe and continental America. Consequently, Karen community organizations – religious, social or otherwise – are mushrooming in many countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Canada, England and the United States of America. Speaking from a historical perspective, this emigration (or forced emigration, depending on how you look at it) of Karen people to different parts of the world is the biggest and most significant since the time they left Mongolia in B.C. 2017 and made their way eastwards to Yunnan and eventually migrated to today's Burma in BC 739.

In general, resettling in a third country resolves immediate security issue we have to face at the Thai-Burma border: many of us are able to escape from fear, especially of attacks, persecution and abuses by the Burmese military. Not only are we able to escape from the confinement of small makeshift camps, but we are be able to develop a new sense of permanent residence in the new, respective host countries. And, if carefully pursued, there are greater economic and educational opportunities we can pursue in the country we are in today.

I look back 16 years and recall the day my family and I arrived at the San Francisco International Airport as refugees from Burma. I can only tell you that, in this country, you can achieve almost anything you aim to achieve if you work hard and stay focused toward your goal. And, have no doubt that education, especially higher education, will be a ticket to your success, career or otherwise.

Since the founding of the United States, refugees from every continent have settled in this country of immigrants. In the early years, immigrants came largely from the British Isles and Northern and Southern Europe. Just like most Karen refugees today, some early immigrants also came as forced immigrants—indentured servants from Europe, enslaved peoples from Africa, and contract laborers from China and Japan.

Some of the most successful people – such as Albert Einstein, Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright – were themselves refugees at one time, who immigrated to the U.S. because of political persecution in their own countries. One thing all these successful people have in common is that they all seek education and make it their number one priority despite of enormous challenges they had to face in their new country.

It is undeniable that resettling in the United States gives us an unprecedented access to economic and educational opportunities that we would not get otherwise. It may be quite struggling at the beginning for some of us with no foundational language skill or basic education. It is not unusual that many of you may not be able to start pursuing education during your first year. But if properly planned, those of us with some form of formal education background may continue to pursue your education in this country. In the United States, after one year of arrival, those of you – 18 years of age or above, who have finished high school in our homeland – may be able to start our schooling at a local community college. It may be difficult to attend college full time while supporting yourself or your family, but certainly, it will be a good idea to pursue a part time education, while working full time. We in exile should take advantage of our position and help raise the profile of our people's struggle. In order to do that, young Karens in exile should explore laws, international relations, political science, etc. Through education we can be prepared to face the challenges our people face in the 21st century. A good Karen lawyer, for example, can present the case of genocide against Karen people before the International Criminal Court. We can also seek formal education and obtain professional skills, such as computer science, law, business administration, economics, accounting, and etc. and help their own people in the areas that we are skilled and knowledgeable. At the very least, we can work hard, save money, and remit a portion of what we earn to the needy Karen IDPs, families of Karen soldiers, or refugees. Most Karens are already doing this, I believe. While each individual effort cannot be underestimated, Karens in exile can be more effective by making a collective effort to organize fundraising campaigns and developing a systematic distribution mechanism with accountability.

To date, according to the Overseas Processing Entity (OPE) in Bangkok, approximately 12, 800 Karen refugees have been resettled in the different cities in the U.S, with some notable concentrations in Utica (New York), St. Paul (Minnesota) and Chapel Hill (North Carolina). Several thousands more are also scattered in countries such as Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden.

The changing political and demographic conditions dictate that when we talk about Karen identity and Karen national progress, it cannot be narrowly confined within the scope of one ideological assembly, one geographic area, one religion or one linguistic group. It is critical that we construct the broadest possible Karen identity that is capable of accommodating multiple ideas, diverse backgrounds and a variety of cultural characteristics.

In the end, our given history compels us to tread on the path of this unfinished struggle – a struggle for national coherence and advancement. It is critically necessary that we continue on with a sense of pragmatism and far-sighted vision. The future of Karen people will be much brighter if we can avoid dwelling in our own feeling of insecurity, but focus on achieving excellence in seeking knowledge and developing our expertise.

It is time for us to embrace the kind of national consciousness that encourages Karen people to think, to reason, to question, to learn, to compete, to cooperate and to be creative in this increasingly interconnected world. The world we live in is a competitive world. The economy we are compelled to be a part of is a knowledge-based economy. It is in these contexts that, I believe, we must seek to develop and adopt a true, meaningful and peaceful existence in this New Year and many years to come.

May this New Year bring you new ideas, new perspectives and new vision that would lead you to see peace in our homeland and the world around you! Mar-nay Aw-keh Buh-duh Buh-dah!

Saw Kapi
December 16, 2009

Mother's Day Reflections

2008-05-11T08:20:00.000-07:00

Happy Mother's Day: Reflections

Saw Kapi

Mother, you told us to practice equality and justice, and that such practice should start at home. From you, we learn that words such as "equality" and "justice" are not merely principles that we can cherish but must practice in dealing with one another. You provide each of us equally with what we need according to what was available at the time. You encouraged us to seek education so that we can better understand the world around us and broaden our perspectives. When we all have grown up, you reminded us that notwithstanding the level of education we have, we must not lose our common sense in every little or big thing that we do. For it is the foundation on which we will build our characters.

The greatest teaching, among the many that you have taught us, perhaps, is the importance of speaking our own language – Karen – at home. You were unyielding in your effort to compel us to speak Karen at home although, at the same time, you encouraged us to read Burmese literatures, both classical and contemporary. From you, we learn that the collective identity of a people depends largely upon her collective ability to use, maintain and develop her language, and that such collective endeavor must begin with persistent effort of each individual (family) at home.

To this end, you are an inspiring mother and also a passionate teacher, who has shown us not only how to be practically patriotic but how to live a life that is positively useful to people around us.

Change in Burma?

2008-03-22T18:30:00.000-07:00

Change in Burma?
by Naw May Oo March 13, 2008

Editor: John Feffer
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org

The Burmese government has recently announced a number of political changes that have caught the attention of the international community. It has announced that a new constitution will soon be completed in time for a nation-wide referendum in May. More dramatically, the government has announced that “it is now time to change from military rule to a people's democracy. There will be a multi-party general election in 2010 under the new constitution."

Opposition groups inside and outside of the country have largely rejected the regime's announcement as business as usual. The government presents itself as a regime that plays by the rules (even if it creates the rules) and believes it has no reason to compromise with the opposition. The opposition, meanwhile, is caught uneasily between rejecting the government’s rules and pushing for a different rule-based political and economic system.
Notwithstanding the Burmese government's poor track record, its recent statement should not be summarily dismissed. The government is preparing for change. This change may not necessarily be good, and it may not be positive. But something is happening inside Burma, and both the international community and the Burmese opposition must come up with a response.

Is It Reform?
It is easier to evaluate what the Burmese government’s proposed constitution would not look like than what it likely would contain. The three greatest necessities for Burma now are: power-sharing among distinct groups, decentralization, and the separation of powers. But these are precisely the three things that the Burmese government has made clear will not be in the constitution.

Power sharing is important, but more important is how this power is to be shared. Burma’s ethnic nationalities, with their specific cultural traditions including distinct languages, have historically been independent peoples. Over time, they have adopted systems that suit their cultures and traditions. If these peoples are to live in a country called the “Union of Myanmar,” there must be a realistic recognition of their autonomous status and their right to take part in the affairs of the state as equal participants.

The principles laid down by the National Convention and represented in the government’s current constitutional draft continue to perpetuate a tried and failed federal system. Any new constitution must grant the seven member units of the “Union of Myanmar” equal status. Also, these units – and any other self-administered areas – should be responsible for the selection of representatives for the upper house of the legislative body. This upper house should also have sufficient independence to represent the interests of ethnic nationalities. Otherwise, such a union will be unworkable. Unfortunately, the government does not seem interested in establishing a true federal system or investing real authority in the legislature.

Decentralization is also important to any peaceful and lasting state structure in Burma. However, the government has rejected the idea that member states of the union can have constitutions of their own. On the contrary, the government has ensured that members of the “State Executive and Judicial Departments” will be responsible to the “Union President” and not to the citizens of the state. This approach to the establishment of a “Union of Myanmar” promises only more conflicts between the ruling ethnic group and the other ethnic nationalities who are determined to exercise their right to govern themselves.

The government’s choice to go with a presidential system seems appropriate given the situation in Burma where respect for and recognition of diversity must be balanced with a vital need for unity. Ideally, the president of the union should be someone who can bring the nation together regardless of ethnic or religious background. For that, the president of the union should be someone who would feel accountable to the whole society. And presidential power must be contained by checks and balances to ensure accountability. However, the Burmese government has crafted a constitution in which the legislature would not be able to balance the power of the president and the president would be able to dominate the judiciary.

Perhaps most importantly, the role of the armed forces – the Tatmadaw – in the constitution is a major concern to many people in and outside of Burma. The government appears to understand that a country is best governed by a civilian government elected by the will of the people and that the role of the armed forces should only be to protect the country from foreign enemies. The dignity of the Tamadaw would be best preserved if it is entirely removed from governmental affairs. However, in the government’s current constitutional draft the Tatmadaw will not only have substantial power in the legislature but will also have complete control over matters such as security, defense, border affairs, and the Tatmadaw itself. This does not look like a civilian government.

The Burmese government’s approach – which involves the National Convention, the constitutional drafting, a referendum, and elections in 2010 – does not seem to promise the people of Burma the future they have long been anticipating, which is a genuinely peaceful union. And peace requires participation. People cannot be forced into a democracy not of their own making. The people of Burma will not participate as long as they are under attack, militarily and otherwise. They cannot participate in a transition if they remain as refugees in Thailand. A democratic transition cannot proceed as long as there is a war against Burma’s minorities.

Responding to the Government
At this stage, there are at least two possible responses to the government approach: a political response inside the country and a humanitarian response from outside.

Inside the country, the opposition has to come up to speed on key political questions such as democratic structure (federalism, constitutionalism) and economic reform. Being simply an opposition movement will no longer be sufficient. Also, debates about conflicting ideas should be encouraged between the government and the opposition as well as among diverse groups of the opposition.

With respect to the humanitarian crisis in and around Burma, speed is of the essence. Humanitarian responses should also correspond with the political response. Specific issues such as the ever-increasing number of refugees, internally displaced persons, and illegal migrant workers on the one hand, and the dangerously deteriorating state of education and public health on the other hand, should be discussed as immediate matters of public concern. All parties involved should ensure that humanitarian issues are not brought up merely to discredit the Burmese government but rather to benefit the entire nation.

It is important that any analysis addresses both the political process and the humanitarian crisis. An either-or approach is divisive. The conflict between opposition groups and the Burmese government is not merely political. There must be talks about a nation-wide ceasefire and systematic and gradual withdrawals of government troops from the respective states of ethnic minorities so that civilians can go back to their villages and go about their lives. There must be discussions about clearing landmines if villagers are to go back to their villages in current war zones. All these issues should be addressed in detail. If the discussion or negotiation stalls, the talks must persevere. But all parties at least have to try both approaches with open-mindedness, and again, a sense of cooperation.

Naw May Oo, a former Karen refugee from Burma, is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). She is currently working on a Ph.D in law and social science at Indiana University School of Law and is a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Democracy in Plural Societies (CCDPS).

P'doh Mahn Sha: the man I know

2008-02-14T17:00:00.000-08:00

P’doh Mahn Sha: the Man I know

Naw May Oo

Minutes after the assassins killed P’doh Mahn Sha, the news reached me from across ocean. First, I was frightened. It was almost 5 o’clock in the morning and I would wake up anyway around the same time. Half of me was wishing it was not true. The other half was thoroughly numbed. I could not react anymore than that for two hours. Then, I broke my own silence. In between, I got calls from people in Australia and Thailand. I handled the calls quite well. But, what’s wrong with breaking down for the loss of a loved one? I don’t know what to do. I don’t really want to talk to people either. I think of Nant Bwa, Nant Zoya, and Poe Bala. I think of their mother who has already passed away. I think of our people. I think of our Revolution. I think of all our leaders. What more do we have to lose?

I am sure there will be many who can give testimonies as to the leadership Tee Mahn Sha provided for and within KNU. Although he is not without criticism, he was undeniably an exceptional leader. He stood out among many leaders and was noticed by all – ordinary civilians, our soldiers, students, and youth. His remarkable determination was one among the many fine qualities he displayed.

My very first encounter with Tee Mahn Sha was through correspondence, a letter that I wrote, titled the voice of the people. It was soon after the fall of Marnerplaw. The cries of the Karen people were still loud and fresh after having left their stronghold, the pride of all Karens, the headquarters of the movement against Burma’s ruthless military regime. In that letter, I cut and pasted pieces of letters from various Karen people I received from Karen State and refugee camps in Thailand. I told him I wanted him to know what many Karen people were feeling and thinking at the time. He welcomed my letter and we became friends. Aside from being a national leader, the leader of the Karen people, he was my personal pedagogical figure, who shared with me a fatherly love, and never found it difficult to not see me beyond being his “daughter” in the Revolution. He named me Nant Tsan Bwa, because I already had a name that represents fire, he said. He thought I was born to be a politician and he believed politics was in my blood. With delight, he added that he wanted me to be a revolutionary as well. When I told him I studied speech communications at the university, he was amused. He laughed and asked, “Do people really teach speech in university?”

When I went back after my graduation, he took me into his office with one of his staff members and talked to me. He said he wanted his staff to be in the meeting so that I would take it as a serious matter as opposed to our usual and casual conversations. He told me how he made decision to join the Karen Revolution after his graduation from college and how he did not turn back. I respected him and his decision, without a doubt. But, I told him that I had to disagree with him for having the same expectation of me. He was not very happy, but he decided not to say more on that. At the same meeting, he told me how he accepted any responsibility bestowed upon him by the leaders and the Revolution. He demonstrated this recognition to all of us who knew him. But, I told him that I could not promise him that I would be able to do the same, because there maybe responsibilities for which I have neither training nor expertise. I knew he did not enjoy my excuses very much. I did not remember how our meeting actually ended. But, I learned a few things about the man, my leader.

I don’t remember when and how we became very close, but he certainly was someone with whom I felt most comfortable among all the leaders in KNU. Internal politics led some people to come up with jokes like “the Uncle and the niece,” referring to me and Tee Mahn Sha. When some people would express their dissatisfaction toward him, they would say to me, with an expression on their faces, “Your Uncle.” It became apparent to some people that I was the protégé of P’doh Mahn Sha, something I proudly accepted. Everyone did not necessarily take it in stride. And since, I noticed he was somewhat a controversial figure.

At the end of 1999, I went back to work with the women’s organizations in order to prepare the first shadow report to be presented to the UN experts committees on CEDAW, in parallel with the SPDC’s first country report. At the time, the KNU was also to hold its 11th congress. Tee Mahn Sha invited me to take part. Naturally, the KNU Congress participants were representatives from the seven constituent districts, departments’ officials, and some independent persons with whom the KNU works or somehow relates to. Tee Mahn Sha wanted it to be my entry into the organization in which he wanted me to work, although he never explicitly told me so.

Whenever I went back to Mae Sot, people could usually find me in two places – one at Tee Mahn Sha’s place (the Office of General Secretary) and the other at the KSNG office. I picked up messages from both places every time I returned. He ran the office with an iron fist. I broke the rules quite a few times. I could disappear for days with the motorbike and he expected it. If needed, he knew he could always find me at the KSNG office. I enjoyed having meals with him very much, because we shared similar tastes for food – no greasy or oily cooking, only grilled or boiled, with chili paste, and a bowl of greens. I would like to call him a friend of the earth. He loved growing plants – flowers, trees, and vegetables. He mastered bamboos, incomparably. Give him a nice, fat, and mature bamboo and in return you can expect incredibly beautiful set of furniture – tea-table or chairs.

P’doh Mahn Sha was a well-read revolutionary leader, too. One year I went back, he told me a story of the old man and the sea, a novel by Hemingway. I also had read the novel, so we both could discuss about it. He was telling it to me in the context of his children who were all away in schools. He concluded at the end, “May Oo, I don’t know how much of the fish will be left for me at the end, but I am still struggling with faith.” I don’t think I responded with anything, because I was also having a guilty conscience at the time as I was also in graduate school.

There had been so many personal encounters that are all memorable. I do not want to be saying the same things about him that many people will be talking about at this time. I came to know this man from a very unique angle and had a very unique relationship with him until his last moments. I had learned so much from him in many different ways. I did not get to work with him so long, but during the years I got to know him, he demonstrated his inner strengths to me.

Naturally, we did not agree on many things. When one of the KNU officials was dismissed by the organization, I talked to him and he said he was sad to do it, but he followed the constitution of the KNU. I told him I disagreed with his reason and that if I were him, I would change the constitution instead for that particular case. A few years later, he was one of the key decision makers to dismiss me and my brother from the organization. I never attempted to talk to him about why, although I was curious, and I was sure that he would have his own justified reasons. I felt that he was being unfair and I thought I would talk to him someday about it as I always talked to him before. Last summer when I went back, I paid him a visit, as usual. He made hot tea for me and before I left, he gave me a small pack of tea, all as usual.

The news this morning woke me up from my sleep. I realize that I still have conversations to be continued with P’doh Mahn Sha, the man who had held the banner of the Karen Revolution so firmly, the man with whom I had yet to make peace. He was undoubtedly a great leader, an able leader, and a willful man with unbreakable determination. Notwithstanding our ideological disagreements, I still believe that he was truly one of our great national leaders.

I absolutely condemn this act of assassination - plotted, directed, and carried out by any individual or group. There is zero tolerance for this act and all acts alike against our leaders, and I am committed to pursue justice for the victim of this outrageous act, whenever and wherever circumstances permit.

In the footsteps of a fallen Karen Revolutionary,
Naw May Oo (Nant Tsan Bwa)
Indiana University School of Law

Parallel Editing in Burma

2007-11-20T17:35:00.000-08:00

Parallel Editing in Burma
May Oo | November 18, 2007

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco
Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org

Recent and ongoing developments in Burma call for parallel editing—the filmmaking technique of running two scenes concurrently to suggest that they are happening at the same time while ratcheting up suspense.

On the one hand, the tough military regime is seemingly committing itself to talks with its longtime antagonist Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD), breaking the deadlock between the ruling regime and the leading opposition party. On the other hand, the governing State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has reportedly increased the number of its troops stationed in areas mainly occupied by members of ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Karenni people. Military activities are increasing along with the number of the troops in the region.

But Burma isn't a film in the making. It's a country suffering an unacknowledged civil war, a clandestine conflict, and a sad reality that can't be hidden away.

Rice Harvest Attack

The increasing numbers of troops in the mainly Karen and Karenni people areas are causing displacement, deaths, and starvation as the regime forcibly relocates minority villages to areas under tighter control. For example, on November 6, the SPDC troops (Military Operations Command 1 and Division 88) repeatedly shelled the rice fields in the Yeh Mu Plaw area in the Northern Karen State.

The Free Burma Rangers, a relief organization, reports that there are over 1,000 internally displaced persons due to these attacks, which were meant to disrupt the rice harvest. The two units began attacking out of camps along the Kyauk Kyi-Hsaw Hta road on October 24. At least nine villagers were wounded and two killed in these attacks against villagers trying to harvest their rice.

The relief organization's report further notes that 64 rice fields were being blocked and controlled by the SPDC troops. North of the Thay Loh Klo River, a tributary of the Yunzalin River, troops were firing mortar rounds into the surrounding rice fields to keep villagers away. The Free Burma Rangers say these attacks are the most recent phase of an offensive, which began last year and has displaced over 30,000 people and killed over 370 villagers in Northern Karen State.

Sign of Change

None of the activities mentioned are new. But they should dampen any excitement over the developments in and around Rangoon. For those who anticipate fruitful dialogues and therefore positive developments, it's imperative to keep looking at what's happening within Burma, not just official and international talks.

Together with the people of Burma, the international community has grown dismayed about a country with such great potential and its silently suffering people. Understandably, any move that takes place in the midst of Burma's long deadlock serves as a sign of progress, or at least a sign of change.

According to a recent telephone interview with the NLD spokesperson Myint Thein, it looks like Aung San Suu Kyi will soon be released. As widely reported, she was recently permitted to meet with her party's leaders for the first time in three years. During the meeting, according to another party spokesperson named U Lwin, Aung San Suu Kyi reported to her party leaders that she has agreed to cooperate with the ruling junta to explore a possible dialogue process in consideration of ethnic nationalities, presumably the non-Burmans. So far so good. Aung San Suu Kyi now believes "the ruling authorities have the will for national reconciliation," as the Los Angeles Times reported. She and her party leaders will have to convince the country that this is indeed true.

Positive Steps

Since the crackdown on the peaceful demonstrators, including monks, the Burmese regime has convincingly demonstrated its commitment for change in the country. First, it welcomed United Nations envoy Ibrahim Gambari. Not only did Gambari get to meet with General Than Shwe, he also got to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the opposition. He was allowed to make his second visit rather successfully, even at the disbelief of the United States. A liaison, Aung Kyi, was appointed by the regime to deal with Aung San Suu Kyi.

Political prisoners, including members of NLD, have been released almost continuously. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, the UN's human rights envoy, has been welcomed back to visit Burma. Undoubtedly, the regime should certainly be encouraged and supported for these developments. Nevertheless, there's another side of the story which still significantly represents Burma, only in parallel actions.

The Other Side

Any attempt either to ignore the other side of the Burma story or to sway away the world's attention from the killings, displacements, and miseries suffered by the ethnic minorities beyond description in the clandestine war zone would be absolutely counterproductive to every effort for national reconciliation made in Rangoon, Pyinmana, New York, Washington, or London. The current situation in Burma challenges all parties concerned. There seem to be few prospects for a large portion of the population as they flee for their lives even as the regime begins to regain trust from its longtime opponent, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

While the current political activities in and around Rangoon are by all means to be welcome by all hopeful people of Burma, for real progress to take root, the regime must halt all the military attacks against its citizens, particularly those in Karen and Karenni areas. Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD also must acknowledge it's fully aware of the ongoing military activities in the areas of ethnic minorities and their unspeakable suffering. Perhaps her opposition party can explain to the minorities how it will take every step possible with the aim to secure a nationwide ceasefire so that a genuine national reconciliation can also be entertained by the ethnic minorities.

There's no reason to believe that a nationwide ceasefire is impossible. An alliance of ethnic political parties has issued a statement welcoming Aung San Suu Kyi's willingness to cooperate with the junta in constructive dialogue. For the groups waging armed struggle against the Burmese regime, 58 years of armed conflict has not brought about the desired results. Therefore, it's crucial in their view that dialogue with the military is achieved. At the same time, these nationalities are well aware that a dialogue by itself will not bring about change. Many ethnic armies entered into ceasefires with the military starting from 1989 to find a political solution. To be sure, the ethnic armed groups need an alternate way to settle their grievances with a political solution instead of armed struggle.

Cautious and Critical

To be cautious and critical over any political move in Burma is a matter of expediency for the ethnic minorities, a hard-learned lesson from experience, but to support Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD at this point in time is irrefutably prudent for everyone, including ethnic minorities, struggling for peace and peaceful political settlements in Burma.

Of course the international community and the Burmese as well as non-Burmese around the world are challenged to understand the country's predicament in parallel editing. But it's both prudent and imperative not to miss the rare chance for genuinely positive change in this war-torn nation.

May Oo is a former Karen refugee from Burma, a graduate of San Francisco State University, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). She is currently a Ph.D student in law and social science at Indiana University School of Law and a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Democracy in Plural Societies.

Blogs and Political Transformation

2007-11-17T11:27:00.000-08:00

Blogs Transforming Politics, Business, Culture, Says Journalist
David Kline discusses how Web logs provide forum for "voice of the people"
By Sara Feuerstein
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- “Nothing I have witnessed is as potentially transformative of media and politics as the emergence of blogging — or rather, the emergence of the ‘voice of the people through blogging,’” says journalist David Kline, who recently participated in a State Department-hosted webchat.

Kline, a journalist, blogger, and author of the book blog! how the newest media revolution is changing politics, business, and culture, discussed the function of blogs in the political arena, how blogs fit in with mainstream news media, and the blogosphere’s evolution during a March 20-24 webchat.

Derived from the term “Web log,” blogs frequently are updated online journals where authors publish opinions and comments, and users can respond and interact with each other. Blogs exist for nearly every topic imaginable, from cooking to TV series, soccer to science. “I suppose you could say that whenever people are passionate about something—be it computers, sports or politics—that’s where you’ll find bloggers,” said Kline.

BLOGS IN POLITICS

“My own theory is that political bloggers will make it more possible for previously unheard voices to be heard and attract an audience—and for streams of political opinion outside the traditional two-party [Republican and Democrat] rhetoric to gain a following” said Kline. Anyone with an Internet connection can maintain a blog, and the voices of ordinary people with something valuable to say are now being heard and having an impact, he added.

In addition to serving as vehicles for opinions and stirring rhetoric, “blogs are amazing ‘collective organizers’ … [that] can rally grassroots political activists, raise funds, mobilize people for common action” he said. Kline noted that U.S.-based blogs such as the liberal-leaning DailyKos and conservative-leaning Powerline have demonstrated tremendous skill at mobilizing like-minded people.

Although blogs wield the power to mobilize voters and activists, Kline believes Web logs have not yet been effective at reaching across the political divide. Political blogs, he said, tend to “preach to the choir,” spurring enthusiastic debate among those committed to firm ideological positions, but they remain unable to spark new, genuine dialog.

“I’d say that the influence of political blogs is still largely at the margins of power. Big money, big political party machines, still dominate. But as I noted before, they no longer have a total monopoly of power and influence. Political bloggers have upset the apple cart from time to time,” said Kline.

BLOGS IN MEDIA

Blogs also have begun to “upset the apple cart” of media coverage and distribution, Kline said. Many have lost faith in the media’s fairness and dedication to the public interest and are turning to blogs as sources of information, analysis and truth. “The fact remains that no longer is public policy, news and information, and national and international discourse the exclusive domain of ‘professional editors, reporters, policymakers, and politicians,’” Kline said.

Conventional media such as newspapers, television news programs and weekly news magazines often quote the blogs that consistently offer credible facts and insightful commentary. Blogs now exert some influence over which stories national and world media choose to cover.

Even though blogs are gaining momentum, Kline said, blogging will complement and reshape mainstream media but never replace it. “In most cases, blogs cannot replace seasoned reporting by, for example, national security reporters with high-level contacts,” nor would they ever “acquire the trust and credibility” of major media, he said.

BLOGGING IN THE FUTURE

How are blogs evolving? According to Kline, 30 million blogs have been created. He believes that bloggers will sort themselves into three main categories: “Some bloggers will gain credibility equal to that enjoyed by mainstream journalists, and they will have to adhere to roughly similar codes of ethics. Others will be content to write passionately about their hobbies or interests, and will be viewed by their dedicated readers not as journalists, but as ‘experts’ in their chosen field. And then finally, of course, a great many bloggers will just spew a lot of hot air, and few will trust them or care what they say.”

Kline also hopes that blogs will bring people together and help them better to understand each other. “There is still a lot of ‘talking at’ rather than ‘communication with’ each other,” said Kline, who hopes that as blogging matures, it will foster “greater empathy and listening.”

Kline said he has high hopes for blogging’s future role in politics, media and the world. “This is not just pie-in-the-sky rhetoric,” he said. “I truly believe, as I say in my book, that blogging is helping to finally create the kind of world we were always taught was best—a world in which EVERYONE at last has a voice and a chance to have that voice heard…And that, to my mind, is real democracy.”

The transcript of this webchat and information about upcoming webchats are available on USINFO's Webchat Station. Kline’s biography is available on his blog, www.blogrevolt.com.

Karens and their newspapers: A Historical View

2007-11-11T07:53:00.000-08:00

KARENS AND THEIR NEWSPAPERS

Earliest Publications:

As a popular saying that goes, "the newspaper is the eyes and ears of a nation," the news media is of prime importance for the advancement of a nation. The progress of a nation can be measured in terms of the news organs owned and published by that nation.

The "SAH TU GAW" (Morning Star) newspaper was published in 1841 and it was the first of its kind in the annals of the history of Burma newspaper printed in Sgaw Karen and English and later in Sgaw Karen alone till the beginning of World War II as a monthly publication. There was a temporary closing down during the Japanese era. Within a few months after the British re-occupation of Burma, it was again published in Karen and Burmese. However, soon after Ne Win assumed power, the first and pioneering indigenous newspaper was forcefully closed down by the military regime.

In 1881 Dr. T. Than Bya and his colleagues formed the Karen National Association (KNA). In 1885 the "DAW KALU" newspaper in Karen and "FAIR PLAY" in English were published by the KNA. This news circulation stopped after the decease of Dr. T. Than Bya.

In 1915, Thra Kah Ser from Shwe Gyin, with the help of his colleagues published the "SAH TU HAH " (EVENING STAR) newspaper. This publication ceased in about the year 1925.

Karen Newspaper Before The Second World War:

(1) Thra G. A. Tudee published privately a Sgaw Karen monthly news periodical "THE SHEPHERD." It was handed over to the Karen Baptist Mission due to financial difficulties. This monthly flourished till the beginning of World War II.

(2) A weekly private newspaper published by Thra Hla Kyaw of Rangoon, the "RECORDER" was circulated until the beginning of the Second World War.

(3) The "CHILDREN'S FRIEND" the voice of Rangoon Karen Christian Endeavour Association was also a monthly news organ published by Thra Pan of Insein.

(4) The "TAW MEH PAH", a non-religious weekly news organ was published by Sir San C. Po of Bassein.

(5) The "KAREN MAGAZINE" was published by Thra San Ba. This was a monthly magazine with current news articles, stories, tit-bits of fun, cartoons, photographs, ancient Karen "HTA" verses and poetry.

(6) "THE BULLETIN" was published by the Insein Karen Seminary once in three months' time. This paper included articles on health and social welfare besides religion.

(7) "THE SUNRISE" was a monthly news periodical issued by the Toungoo Anglican
Church. This paper had news of national affairs, social welfare and religion.

(8) The "TAW HSOO NYA" (Advance Forward), later known as "Leh Hsoo Nya" (Go Forward) edited and published by S'ra Tun Aung (Father of Mahn James Tun Aung) was monthly news periodical in Pwo Karen.

Karen News Periodicals after World War II:

(1) The "ETHNIC PEOPLE'S JOURNAL" ( Taing Yin Tha ) was a monthly issue in Burmese with a stand against "Imperialism" and "Feudalism". This paper was edited by Mahn Win Maung who later became an instrument of the AFPFL and an opponent to the KNU and the Karen national cause.

(2) The "THU WUNNA TAING" (The Golden Land) was published in 1947. It was the voice of the KNU, the most famous publication that bravely stood against the Burmese Chauvinist policies and the AFPFL regime, which instituted a slander campaign against the Karen people. This newspaper had firmly rallied the Karens. The publication ceased due to the outbreak of the armed revolution by Karens.

(3) "GO FORWARD" a monthly news issue, first published by Thra Raleigh Dee of Insein and then later taken over by the Karen Baptist Mission is still in circulation.

(4) "OUR HOME" a monthly women's journal is supervised by Thramu Edith Pyu and is still in circulation. This journal contains domestic science, literature and health for women.

(5) "THE LIGHT" was published by a young Karen named Saw Lawder Dwe. Although this news organ had been outstanding for the Karen Youth, due to the one-sided support of Moosso Hunter Tha Hmwe it had been liquidated along with Moosso's clique by Ne Win's military regime.

(6) " THE KAREN VANGUARD JOURNAL " was supervised and published by a group of Karen Youths from the Rangoon University. This publication being a progressive and nationalist in character was liquidated when Ne Win's Military regime took over power.

Compiled from The KNU BULLETIN, No. 2 January 1986.

In Her Own Words

2007-11-08T17:12:00.000-08:00

By The Associated Press Thu Nov 8, 4:13 PM ET

Following is the text of the statement by Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, released Thursday by U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari.

"I wish to thank all those who have stood by my side all this time, both inside and outside my country. I am also grateful to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, for his unwavering support for the cause of national reconciliation, democracy and human rights in my country.
"I welcome the appointment on 8 October of Minister Aung Kyi as minister for relations. Our first meeting on 25 October was constructive and I look forward to further regular discussions. I expect that this phase of preliminary consultations will conclude soon so that a meaningful and timebound dialogue with the SPDC leadership can start as early as possible.

"In the interest of the nation, I stand ready to cooperate with the government in order to make this process of dialogue a success and welcome the necessary good offices role of the United Nations to help facilitate our efforts in this regard.

"In full awareness of the essential role of political parties in democratic societies, in deep appreciation of the sacrifices of the members of my party and in my position as General Secretary, I will be guided by the policies and wishes of the National League for Democracy. However, in this time of vital need for democratic solidarity and national unity, it is my duty to give constant and serious considerations to the interests and opinions of as broad a range of political organizations and forces as possible, in particular those of our ethnic nationality races.

"To that end, I am committed to pursue the path of dialogue constructively and invite the government and all relevant parties to join me in this spirit.

"I believe that stability, prosperity and democracy for my country, living at peace with itself and with full respect for human rights, offers the best prospect for my country to fully contribute to the development and stability of the region in close partnership with its neighbors and fellow ASEAN members, and to play a positive role as a respected member of the international community."

Plausible Dialogue in Burma

2007-10-30T15:37:00.000-07:00

FPIF Commentary
Naw May Oo | October 23, 2007

Editor: John Feffer
Foreign Policy In Focus

Following the pro-democracy demonstrations led by Buddhist monks and the violent crackdowns in August and September by the Burmese junta (SPDC), Burma has made headlines in ways it has never before.

According to the latest news, the world should prepare for some kind of transition in Burma . The international community seems to have come to terms with one painful reality – the impossibility of completely eliminating the Burmese military from the equation. As U.S. envoy to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad put it, "The military, as a national institution, has its role to play in the transition and post-transition but it's very important that a serious dialogue on transition begins and that the international community, regional players, play their roles."

What seems missing from the current discourse is the role of the armed resistance groups and the interests of the ethnic minorities of Burma . World opinion is demanding a dialogue between the junta and Aung San Suu Kyi’s political party, namely the National League for Democracy (NLD). Burma ’s ethnic minorities support such a possible dialogue. But it is simplistic to believe the equation includes only NLD and SPDC.

The questions of democracy, military rule, and the constitutional arrangements for Burma ’s ethnic minorities are intrinsically intertwined. Therefore, what is necessary is a “tripartite dialogue” – the SPDC, Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD, and the ethnic nationalities. To be sure, a call for tripartite dialogue is not a new invention. The UN General Assembly has made this call since 1994. Yet, each of the ethnic groups has its own special set of concerns, so they should not be lumped together in the negotiations. In truth, then, the tripartite dialogue should be better understood as a multipartite dialogue.

Minority Positions

Although the UN continues to recommend tripartite dialogue, there has never been any effort to prepare ethnic minorities as the third party to come on board. Despite the call for tripartite dialogue, every effort made so far, no matter how insignificant, has encouraged only bilateral talks. In October 2002, for example, on his return from a 12-day fact-finding trip to Burma , Sergio Paulo Pinheiro commented that Burma was still far away from the long-awaited tripartite dialogue. Though it was not meant to be discouraging, he added, “that’s the way it is.” Throughout his term, the envoy maintained that the first thing was to “break the deadlock.” No group has contested such an approach.

The regime has claimed ceasefires with 17 or so armed groups, but such agreements are verbal and fragile. Far from acquiring a much-needed peace, those ceasefires have only helped to create puppet armies for the SPDC. Historically prominent groups such as the Karen National Union (KNU), the Shan State Army (SSA-South), the Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), to mention a few, are among the remaining ethnic-based forces. An alliance of these ethnic minority groups dates back to 1975 when they formed a National Democratic Front (NDF) with the objective to establish a federal union in which ethnic equality and right to self-determination are fully recognized. While military cooperation among these groups is impractical because of distance and the Burmese regime’s military dominance over their territories, the formation of the NDF nevertheless brings the minority groups together and minimizes divisions and tensions among them.

At present, a more inclusive and politically significant group like the Ethnic Nationalities Council (ENC) best represents the voice and position of ethnic minorities in Burma . It is made up of political parties, groups, armed organizations as well as women’s networks and youth organizations. The ENC should be viewed as a corresponding partner for the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD), an umbrella organization of the non-Burman nationalities formed in 1988 to participate in the tripartite dialogue. Especially while the UNLD has been effectively and severely paralyzed by the regime, the ENC is a force to reckon with in any tripartite dialogue.

Undoubtedly, each group will have to discuss its specific needs and grievances with the government in power. For example, while the ethnic minorities fundamentally agree to the establishment of the federal union of Burma , each group wants to negotiate what powers will be entrusted to the federal government and what powers would remain with the states. Similarly, they would like to be able to negotiate with the bordering states to demarcate their respective states constitutionally. While autonomy to protect, preserve, and promote local cultures and traditions including languages is a common desire, each state would like to implement these protections according to their right to self-determination. They want assurance that they will never be forced into a melting pot again. Nevertheless, the basis principles on which these groups have built their alliance, their commitment to negotiations, and their willingness to compromise are far more functionally realistic than one would imagine.

Democratic Challenge

The current effort by the UN envoy and members of the UN Security Council for dialogue between the ruling junta and NLD’s Aung San Suu Kyi is undoubtedly plausible, but plausible only if it leads to subsequent dialogues that are more inclusive. Otherwise, the continuation of the vicious circle of internal armed conflict seems likely. We should learn a lesson from October 2000 “secret talks” exclusively between NLD’s Aung San Suu Kyi and SPDC. Any resumption of such talks would be unacceptable.

While the UN has called for tripartite dialogue, others believe that the only acceptable solution has been the absolute transfer of power to the NLD, which won a landslide victory in the 1990 elections. NLD resolutions, declarations, and statements have all supported this transfer of power. Several U.S. statements follow suit. The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, for instance, begins: “The State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has failed to transfer power to the National League for Democracy (NLD) whose parliamentarians won an overwhelming victory in the 1990 elections in Burma .” As a result, the quest for an answer to Burma ’s problem has been deadlocked for years because of such nonnegotiable positions.

Now that the international community is again pursuing dialogue, ethnic minorities and the armed resistance groups still remain absent in the current equation. The numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons serve as effective political weapons to discredit the ruthless regime, yet there is no mention of the ongoing war against minorities in the current analysis of the political crisis.

Burma’s problems cannot simply be solved with the arrival of democracy. If ethnic minorities have not had a place at the bargaining table before the fact, Burma ’s new democracy will not likely protect them after the fact. Another emerging theory, then, is that ethnic minorities are either on their own or they must face two forces in the country – SPDC plus NLD. That would be a tragic ending to the long and sad story of Burma .

May Oo is a former Karen refugee from Burma, a graduate of San Francisco State University, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). She is currently a Ph.D student in law and social science at Indiana University School of Law and a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Democracy in Plural Societies.

Ethnic Nationalities question in Burma Politics

2007-10-20T08:29:00.000-07:00

The Burmese Media and Ethnic Tension: Toward a Bleak National Conciliation? by -- May Oo

May Oo is a former Karen refugee, born and raised in Burma, a graduate of San Francisco State University, and got her LL.M from Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, IN. She was a Snyder Research Fellow at Lauterpatch Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, UK (2002). She is currently a Ph.D student in Law and Social Science at Indiana University School of Law and a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Democracy in Plural Societies.

Before anything else is said, it is perhaps prudent to elaborate what one means by ethnic tension in Burma. However one has understood it before, in this essay, ethnic tension is a term to describe the tension between the Burman/Burmese and the rest of the nationalities such as Karen, Shan, Mon, and Chin. Likewise, the use of the terms Burmese and Burman should probably be clarified with all due respect to the people of Burma. However one has understood them before, in this essay ‘Burmese’ is to mean a language and Burmese/Burman is to mean a particular ethnic group known as both Burmese and Burman.

There is always a contradiction in the Burmese/Burman’s claim for a love for coexistence and a desire to be dominant. This contradiction can be observed in various areas, but no observation is more poignant than in the Burmese language media or the media predominantly run by the Burmese/Burman. This essay will look at Burma and the struggle of its people since independence for freedom, peace, and prosperity. The purpose is two fold: first to identify how the struggle has been presented, portrayed, and understood; second, how such presentation, portrayal, and understanding shape and dictate the direction of the struggle. Ultimately, this essay will delve into a critical analysis between the roles of Burmese media or the media predominantly run by the Burmese/Burman and the prospect of coexistence in a country as much diverse as Burma.

Independence Movement and the Deceptive Histories

Through out the secondary education, the school children in Burma learn about the independent heroes of their country both in the history class and Burmese literature class. Of all the heroes about whom we have learned, there were fewer than two heroes who were not ethnically Burmese/Burman. The Burmese/Burman leaders were portrayed as great patriots and saviors of the country under enslavement of the British colonizer. Less than being critical toward the fact, instead the children of minorities felt belittled by a systematic indoctrination as such that undermined their status in the union of Burma. Although parents told different stories at home, what mattered was what the textbooks said. And, the textbooks did not say anything about ethnic minorities except to legitimize the melting pot of Burma as the home of all ethnic groups.

Prior to independence in 1948, some writings in histories tell us that the ethnic minorities in the so-called Burma were independent entities of their own and that they were put under the umbrella of British rule as the British continued to conquer. Also, we learn from those writings that the Burmese/Burman and the rest of ethnic groups never shared peace between them. The quarrels between other groups were understood as natural discrepancies but absolutely manageable. However, the quarrels between each of the groups and the Burmese/Burman have always been understood as irreconcilable differences of peoples and their views toward life and a call for permanent separation.

Although there were members of all ethnic groups who participated in the independence movement, recorded in the official history was only the Burmese/Burman. From those history pages, students of all ethnic groups learn about the Burmese/Burman nationalism, which students are also encouraged, if not forced, not only to cherish but also to adopt. Chanting such as --
tha kin myo hey doh bama,
bama sar thee doh sar,
bama sagar thee doh sagar
doh sar ko chit par
doh sagar ko myat noe par
...were rather provocative and exclusively ethnocentric madness that drove the Burmese/Burman population to fight for freedom from the British colonization. However, a fight for freedom from British was not the only fight the Burmese/Burman were engaging in. Simultaneously, the Burmese/Burman were continuously engaging in several other fights against Rakhine, Karen, and Mon to establish their domination upon their liberation from their colonizers. Additionally, it is crucial to note that fights between the Burmese/Burman and the Rakhine or between the Burmese/Burma and the Mon predated British occupation. Anybody who was critical of Burmese/Burman nationalism risks being labeled as pro-British, foreign axis, and therefore enemy of Burma.

On similar account, the ethnic minorities were also engaging in dual struggles – one against the British and the other against the Burmese/Burman. Although the groups did not explicitly operate on the ground that “your enemy’s enemy is your friend,” every now and then, groups were forced to choose between the lesser of two evils – the British and the Burmese/Burman. The history in Burmese language, the official history of the nation, teaches the children of Burma to believe that ethnic minorities were uneducated and used by the foreign colonizers. The same history also teaches the school children to believe that whatever harsh or brutal experience the ethnic minorities had had in the hands of the Burmese/Burman leadership was only a punishment for being axis of foreign powers and to punish them so was a perfectly understandable political expediency and had nothing to do with anti-minorities sentiment. The same history omits, without being questioned, any explanation as to why the Burmese/Burman leadership brought in the fascist Japanese under whose reign minorities in particular went through hellish life. The civil-war that broke out in 1949 was not reported to the general population until 1988. The plights of minorities did not come into discussions until the minorities’ resistance groups had to host – feed, train, equip, and protect – the Burmese students fleeing from the madness of their government’s Army in the cities.

The Myths

Yet, there is also a myth in Burma, the way the people of Burma wish to be known. And, it is the way Burma has been portrayed by and through the media of all kinds. Burma is a multi-ethnic nation and all the ethnic groups coexisted peacefully until the British occupation. In terms of government and political system, Burma has always been a (federal) union, or pyi daung su, in which minorities are fully recognized. The people of Burma know very little or nothing about the civil-war in Burma and the only official story teller about the civil-war is the successive Burmese governments. To the people of Burma, the ethnic minorities, especially who have been fighting against the successive Burmese governments, are "dividers" of the union and "destructionists" of the nation. The country is poor because the government has to engage in fighting the rebels. The most recognized by the people of Burma is that the country has been under military rule, and it is bad. Therefore, they unite themselves under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy and struggle against the military regime.

Contemporary Views and the Media

There are at least three facets in the prevailing views on Burma and all the views are directly or indirectly sponsored by the Burmese language media or the media predominantly run by the Burmese/Burman. First, there is internal fighting between the Burmese government and the ethnic minorities. Sometimes, it is known as civil-war, but often it is recognized as insurgent movement with no significant cause. Although it is a war against predominant Burmese/Burman government by the non-Burman ethnic groups, the fact is always omitted. Years of the systematic destructions of the livelihood in ethnic minorities’ areas - land, fields, and properties - never amount to the destruction of a people in the view of the media. Years of the killings of ethnic minorities in remote villages never amount to the concern of the ordinary Burmese/Burman. Although there has always been a consensus in blaming the minorities for never being content, no question has ever been raised as to why these people have to fight. When severe human rights violations against minorities are reported to the media, the reports get censored because they do not constitute news. No ordinary Burmese/Burman complains about the killing of ethnic minorities by the Burmese government and or by the Burmese Army, and certainly there has never been any effort led by the Burmese/Burman to stop the civil-war.

Second, the people of Burma, especially the urban population, have successfully avoided the responsibility to keep their country peaceful by remaining silent about the sixty years old civil-war. Particularly so the Burmese/Burman population, whose voice would have been more powerful, has failed their fellow citizens, the ethnic minorities, by deliberately ignoring their plights. While individual citizens belonging to the non-Burman ethnic groups would frequently disappear and are tortured, imprisoned, and killed because they are being suspected as insurgents, the rest of the population choose to remain silent as their way of escape. While the general population hides behind the fact that the government controls the media and that they are not informed of anything about civil-war, the Burmese media or the media predominantly run by the Burmese/Burman – namely the Voice of America (VOA), the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), and later the Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Democratic Voice of Burma (RFA) – outside of Burma conveniently chose to ignore the plight of the ethnic minorities for years. Print media such as Irrawaddy are not less responsible. Not only that these media institutions fail to recognize diversity of languages and cultures in the country, but also do they deliberately select news with ethnic biases. Broadcasting and publication of only sensationalized news or events are a common practice although all these groups claim to be different from the government run Myanmar Radio and New Light of Myanmar.

Third, in light of the recent political development in Burma and the headlines news it has made around the world, the time has come again for the media to talk about the ethnic minorities. Only this time, presentation on the ethnic minorities of Burma has become, not only inaccurate as ever, but also more negative than ever. Both the styles and contents of presentations – in print and broadcasting media – lately amount to incitement and unprofessional. The recent interview of DVB with the Burmese monk, for example, illustrated how ignorant the Burmese/Burman populations – including monks – are about their own country while it was also an illustration of unethical practice on the part of the journalist who asked the questions. The interview was about the deployment of soldiers by the ruling regime, recalled from their stations in the ethnic minorities’ areas such as Karen, Karenni, and Shan states, in the cities to crack down on the protesters. The interviewer asked if the soldiers deployed were of “ethnic groups” and the monk answered he was not sure but those soldiers did “speak Burmese with accent.” Not only the question was imprudent by itself, but also to broadcast such below-the-belt talks was inciting. Certainly, the population of Burma whose news sources are severely limited would hear that interview and undoubtedly ponder on it. But, DVB carries on broadcasting unapologetically.

Recently in Irrawaddy, the editor decided to publish an article questioning “the absence” of ethnic minorities in the pro-democracy movement. Instead of questioning the turning of blind-eyes by the Burmese/Burman population and the media, the article explicitly points the finger at ethnic minorities for, in his opinion, being absence in the protests. It is rather preposterous to even think that ethnic minorities do not engage in demonstrations while many of these minorities have clearly demonstrated to the government, the general populations, and to the world that they are not prepared to be governed by such an ethnically hysteric totalitarian regime. These are a few examples in terms of how sensationalized publication and broadcasting impact the understanding of the population about their own country and their fellow citizens.

The author of this essay is a staunch believer in the freedom of expression and is also a student of the first amendment right in the U.S., therefore would not be necessary to question the freedom exercised through the article both by the author as well as the editor. However, what the author wishes to question is the motive of such publication and how benefits are weighed. Commitment to democracy with peaceful coexistence in Burma is not only of Burmese/Burman politicians, but also of members of the press. Otherwise, members of the press would have less legitimate reasons to criticize the ruling regime. Nonetheless, it is disappointing to observe that Burmese media, supposedly democratic and open, are indeed part of major contributing factor to ethnic tension in Burma.

To be sure, although the pro-democracy movement claims to have gained better understanding of ethnic minorities’ plight, and also as the pro-democracy movement inside and outside Burma continues to advocate for the peaceful coexistence, it is most discouraging to reckon with the detrimental ignorance of the Burmese media. While the public looks up to media as educational institution, especially the ones outside of the military regime’s control, it is rather sickening to acknowledge the insensitivity of Burmese media or the media predominantly run by the Burmese/Burman. After over five decades of experience, it is forgivable if the ethnic minorities of Burma begin to doubt the claim of the Burmese/Burmans that they are willing to coexist peacefully with them. Unfortunately, we are compelled to confess that national conciliation will remain a distant dream so long as the ethnic minority partners are effectively marginalized.

International Bloggers' Day for Burma on the 4th of October

2007-10-03T18:28:00.000-07:00

The struggle for freedom and dignity in Burma

2007-09-28T17:18:00.000-07:00

An expression of extraordinary courage: The fight for freedom and dignity led by Buddhist monks in Burma... PLEASE CLICK HERE to see more from the original link.

Resistance and Resettlement

2007-09-15T08:13:00.000-07:00

From Resistance to Refugees and Resettlement: The Karen Struggle for Self-determination and Survival

By – Saw Kapi

The Karens began their national struggle for self-determination in 1949 with the Karen National Union (KNU) being the spearheading organization. Relatively, through out the 1980s and in the early 1990s the movement was economically self-sufficient, militarily strong and politically hopeful. But those good old days are long gone and the situation on the ground today is increasingly inauspicious both politically and militarily. The number of displaced Karen villagers has consistently increased over the past decade. More and more refugees – often by the hundreds – are leaving the refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border to resettle in a third country. What do all these mean to the Karen resistance movement and the future of Karen people in general?

There have been tens of thousands of Karen and other ethnic refugees along the Thailand-Burma border since the 1980’s. Why only now are the U.S. and other European countries willing to allow these refugees to resettle in their countries is an interesting but highly political question. The U.S. and other European countries, as a matter of fact, are well aware that “there are often good reasons not to resettle particular populations, or at least to defer any resettlement until other possible responses to the situation have been fully explored and allowed to develop.” But they have made a conscious policy decision to resettle the refugees from Burma. To date, according to the Overseas Processing Entity (OPE) in Bangkok, approximately 12, 800 Karen refugees have been resettled in the different cities in the U.S, with some notable concentrations in Utica (New York), St. Paul (Minnesota) and Chapel Hill (North Carolina). Several thousands more are also scattered in countries such as Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden.

The resettlement of Karen refuges by the thousands has both negative and positive consequences on the Karen resistance movement. One notable and immediate impact, as a result of mass resettlement of Karen refugees, is on the refugee camps and the remaining population itself. Usually, the first ones to leave the refugee camps as part of the resettlement program are those with some types of skills and educational background, who often play critical roles in the operation of schools and medical clinic in the camps. As a result, the refugee camps are experiencing increasing shortages of teachers, medics and skilled workers. It is quite obvious that the refugee camps inside Thailand and further opportunities to resettle in a third country have become a significant "pull factor" for the population inside the country in their decision making – whether or not to completely abandon their villages, which are often vulnerable to attacks by the Burmese troops. Forced relocation of Karen villages by the Burmese authorities has made it difficult for the mobility of Karen resistance forces in the area, but the complete abandonment of the area – by the Karen villagers in hope of coming to the refugee camps across the Thai-Burma border – makes the situation even worse. Without Karen villages and villagers, for example, the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) may find it difficult to maneuver its forces in the areas.

In general, resettling refugees in the developed countries is a necessary humanitarian response to Burma's decades long political deadlock. It resolves immediate security issue the refugees have to face at the Thai-Burma border: they are able to escape from fear, especially of attacks, persecution and abuses by the Burmese, Thai, and in some cases, Karen military splinter groups. Not only are they able to escape from the confinement of small makeshift camps, but these Karen refugees will be able to develop a sense of permanent residence in their new respective host countries. And, if carefully pursued, there are greater economic and educational opportunities in countries such as the United States and Canada than in current refugee camps in Thailand.

On one hand, it is undeniably true that resettling in a more developed third country gives the Karen refugees an unprecedented access to economic and educational opportunities that they would otherwise never get. But, on the other hand, those who lack some foundational language skills or basic education may find themselves in a very difficult situation upon their arrival. Free social services that are available to newly arrived refugees are limited to only a few months from the date of their arrival. It may be very difficult for families – especially with elderly persons or young children in the family – to transition from government-assisted to self-supported resettlement. It is expected that the refugees may not be able to start pursuing any education during their first year. But if properly advised, those with some form of formal education background may continue to pursue their education in their new host countries. In the United States, after one year of their arrival, those of the Karen refugees who are older than 18 year old can start their education at a local community college. It may be difficult to go to school full time while supporting yourself or your family, but certainly, it will be a good idea to pursue a part time education, while working full time.

In fact, as we continue to face an ongoing military oppression by the Burmese military regime, the right of Karen people to defend themselves must and should always be exercised. We have defended and we will always defend ourselves. But, those in exile should take advantage of their position and help raise the profile of their struggle. Young Karens in exile should explore laws, international relations, political science, etc. so that we can read, write and present the case of the Karen people to the world. A good Karen lawyer, for example, can present a case of genocide against the Karen people before an international criminal court. Also, Karens in exile can seek formal education, professional skills - such as computer science, law, business administration, economics, accounting, and etc. and help their own people in the areas they are skilled and knowledgeable.

At the very least, one can work hard, save money, and send a portion of what he or she earned to the needy Karen IDPs, families of Karen soldiers, or refugees. Most Karens are already doing this, I believe. While each individual effort cannot be underestimated, Karens in exile can be more effective by making a collective effort to organize fundraising campaigns and developing a systematic distribution mechanism with accountability.

On the part of KNU, as a leading political entity that has been representing Karen people’s interest, it can initiate some critical measures that politically prepare those who are leaving for a third country. While it is difficult, if not impossible, for the KNU to stop the refugees from leaving the camps in Thailand, it can encourage the departing refugees to continue engaging in the affairs of Karen people while living abroad. It is very easy for young Karen in exile to lose touch with the reality of their people back home, if they are not continually reminded of their roots and what is going on. Perhaps, the KNU can establish a department - of Refugee and Overseas Karen Affairs - to communicate, reach out to, and work with the Karen constituents abroad.

The aforementioned effort is not necessarily a new thing in the world's history of political exiles and refugees. In the early 1950s, the Israeli dealt with their refugee problem and turned their exile communities into remarkable political forces by passing the Law of Return soon after the state of Israel was established. The law of return guarantees the right of any individual of Jewish decent in exile to return to the State of Israel and resettle in their "homeland." The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), for example, established the Department of Refugees Affairs to sort out the Palestinian refugee question and to give the Palestinian refugees a more structured political voice. The right of Palestinian refugees to return to the land they were vacated from is always an integral issue in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process. In fact, as much as the Karen refugees are products of the Burmese regime’s military operation against the Karen resistance movement, they must also become an inevitable part of any political solution Burma seeks to find. The refugees themselves may not have any significant role to play in the making of policies that impact their lives, but they surely are crucial in the implementation process of any policy impacting them: directly or indirectly.

The struggle for the right to self-determination that has started sixty years ago is now fighting for its survival as the exodus of refugees continues. In the early 1960s and 70s, the Karen National Union was regarded as the main body that brought to the fore the Karen struggle as – more than a mere question of a humanitarian issue that needed redress – a national fight for freedom and rights. And yet it must also be acknowledged, as uncomfortable as this may be to many of us, that the Karen struggle for self-determination has been reduced to an endeavor for national survival.

Karens in the rural parts of Burma, especially in areas that are frequently penetrated by the imposing Burmese troops – mostly in the eastern side of Salween river, and increasingly everywhere else – are losing their land, their rights, their freedoms, and their livelihood at an alarming speed, unprecedented in their turbulent history with the Burmese military occupation. Many of these rural folks that have loyally served as the backbone of Karen resistance movement have been forced to become refugees within self-confined, isolated camps in Thailand, while some of the more fortunate ones are now scattered around the world, and thus demoting the status of our national resistance to a mere humanitarian struggle rather than a national political fight.

Going Home

2007-08-25T03:33:00.000-07:00

Awhile ago I reported on this blog that a group of young Karen - most of them are students - plan to return to their root as part of what they called "Going Home" program. I now present you their trip report available at: http://www.goinghomekarens.blogspot.com/. For this presentation/ program is entirely educational, both in its purpose and contents, I think that there would not be any better time than now as the current area of discussion is on education.

Any further question or discussion can either be continued here or addressed to the email addresses as posted on the blog.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Naw May Oo

Made in Heaven: A Review

2007-08-11T08:22:00.000-07:00

MADE IN HEAVEN: A REVIEW

By - Saw Kapi

Beginning with a historically charged song titled "Absolute Question" by Gal Lay, the newly released gospel album "Made in Heaven" in Burmese language produced by the Upper Burma Karen Baptist Association is among the hottest musical live show VCDs in Burma today. Depicting one of the historical parables from the Old Testament, Gal Lay in her Cleopatra-style outfit, as the VCD shows, utterly awed the five thousand plus rock-music-thirsty audience in the great Pu Thar Pyu hall in Insein. The song, composed by Klo & Kweh Music Award winner Academy Thomas, reminds us that all the empires and emperors in the history fell, some even spectacularly; no matter how strong they were at one point in history – a clear reminder of impermanence, a sheer historical reality.

Aung Barn sings the title song, "Made in Heaven." The music and accompanying lyrics are grizzly and pointed. The music also takes an intimate look at human origin, through a study of the creation and of human's broken relationship with his creator.

One of the two bonus tracks sung by Phyu Phyu Kyaw Thein, a Shakira style Burmese rock star, catches audience's attention with her emotionally charged song titled "I can't bare." Portraying a young girl left behind by her mother at birth, young May Hnin Pyu shows her God's given talent of acting in the backdrop of Rangoon's heart-renting slum.

In terms of style, "Made in Heaven" songs are all over the map, and that variety is what makes this unconventional gospel album so impressive. There are sounds ranging from the traditional-style, violin-driven "Immanuel" to Rap-leaning "I and about myself" by Breaky. Indeed, "Made in Heaven" is everything you would want from a well-produced, contemporary gospel pop album: colorful, catchy hits and an appealing range of styles.

Revitalizing Karen National Movement

2007-06-27T05:48:00.000-07:00

Revitalizing the Struggle: It is a must, not an option

“Only a consistent, cohesive and reasonable strategy that emanates from a new wave of critical and pragmatic younger generation Karens – who understand the real politics of our times – will be able to revitalize our struggle.”

By - Saw Kapi

Quite some time ago when I read some of the most ridiculous lines from a self-appointed nonetheless misguided “watchdog” threatening to "reveal" my political “secret" in the Karenissues forum, I found it difficult to pay any scant attention; with all due respect, I just assumed that the irrelevant jingo can say what he normally say within his narrowly confined, irrational circle of associates.

It is, in fact, troubling to note that there is a huge gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics - the ease with which some of us are willing to accuse each other, which often result in our singular inability to build a viable consensus to tackle the critical problems confronting our people.

The Burmese military regime’s relentless and unilateral subjugation over Karen villages in the rural parts of Burma is no doubt appalling, but so far as the Karen people are concerned the whole grotesque infightings among the different Karen factions is a remarkable failure in establishing much needed functional unity.

It is never easy, although obvious and unsurprising, to see that the Karen resistance movement, at home and abroad remains as fragmented and self-consumed, thus ineffective, as ever before, but most notably in the recent few months. If the inference is concerned with a sitting government in a functional polity, this realization wouldn’t mean much; but when it is seen in regards to a nation that is facing an active campaign of ethnic cleansing at home, and an international ignorance – as shameful as this may sound – then, the problem is both real and urgent.

Karens in the rural parts of Burma, especially in areas that are frequently penetrated by the imposing Burmese troops – mostly in the eastern side of Salween river, and increasingly everywhere else – are losing their land, their rights, their freedoms and their livelihood at an alarming speed, unprecedented in their turbulent history with the Burmese military occupation. Many of these rural folks that have loyally served as the backbone of Karen resistance movement have been forced to become refugees within self-confined, isolated camps in Thailand, while some of the more fortunate ones are now scattered around the world – thus demoting the status of our national resistance to a more humanitarian strive than a national political fight.

In the early 1960s and 70s, the Karen National Union was regarded as the main body that brought to the fore the Karen struggle as – more than a mere question of a humanitarian issue that needed redress – a national fight for freedom and rights. It must also be acknowledged, as uncomfortable as this may be to some, that the Karen struggle for self-determination has now been reduced to a mere slogan politics, with the regular releases of press statements from the headquarters situated usually a few miles within Thailand. The problem is indeed more exhaustive than a mere ideological or personal quarrels between a few rival political groups; rather, it is an expression of a prevailing factionalism that seems to consume members of various Karen communities regardless of where they are based.

This author's frequent visits and involvement in many activities organized by different Karen groups seem to leave him with the same conclusion: that there is a need for a collective national strategy developed by a national movement that speaks and represents Karen people everywhere.

And only a consistent, cohesive and reasonable strategy that emanates from a new wave of critical and pragmatic younger generation Karens – who understand the real politics of our times – will be able to engage national public opinion and revitalize our struggle. Nonetheless, those in the dogmatic camp seem to regard any move to encourage critical thinking as a threat and hence continue their ardent attempt to disrupt and discourage it at all cost. And yet, after all, reforming and revitalizing our national movement is not even an option - it is a must.

Karen Reunioin 2007 in KL, Malaysia

2007-06-19T17:39:00.000-07:00

Karen Reunion 2007 Successfully Concluded

Karen community leaders, students, well-known entertainers and active community members from several parts of the world participated in this reunion. Activities at the reunion ranged from community development presentation, group discussion and cultural entertainment to solidarity luncheon and friendly talks.

The objectives of the Karen Reunion 2007 are:

(1) social: to get to know each other; to facilitate ways for further cooperation among like-minded individuals on their respective interests
(2) Cultural: to learn what have been done on cultural preservation from our other fellow Karens and assess if we can imitate, emulate, or help assist these activities.
(3) Educational: to learn what have been done on educational promotion from our other fellow karens and assess if we can imitate, emulate, or help assist these activities.
(4) Business/ livelihood improvement: to learn what have been done on entrepreneur skills promotion from our other fellow Karen and assess if we can imitate, emulate and help assist these activities.

Below you can see some of the immages of notable moments.

Group picture of some of the participants

Malaysia Karen Organization hosted participants with a Done Dance presentation

A presentation on Community Development project by Saw Hsar Law La (of Taw Oo)

Saw Thu Yeh (Thailand) presented his analysis of current Karen situation

A presentation by an active woman community organizer, Nant Su Su Hlaing

Naw Hser Ku Paw (Singapore)during her presentation

Saw Sunlight talks about Karen community development in Burma

Saw Gedioin Morris, one of the key organizers, welcomed the participants

Dr. Naw Ardeth Maung Thawnghmung, the ultimate organizer of the Karen Reunion - 2007, also facilitated group discussion

Thanks to the Malaysia Karen Organization for the courage and generosity as host of Karen Reunion 2007

As some presented, some listened attentively

Karen Reunion in Malaysia

2007-06-10T06:36:00.000-07:00

KAREN REUNION: It is literally about reunion, not about division or exception

By Saw Kapi

When the idea of Karen Reunion was conceived some years ago by some of the organizers of this somewhat controversial and yet seemingly historical event, it was simply about creating an opportunity for Karens from different parts of the world, particularly in the Asia Pacific region, to come together, meet, befriend and talk about issues collectively encountered by Karen people everywhere. It was never meant to be a mere gathering of like-minded Karens.

If one talked about organizing a Karen Reunion in Malaysia fifteen years ago, it could be a surprise to many and the idea would have been dismissed and/or regarded as irrelevant. Although there were some Karens residing in overseas at that time, the number of those living abroad was not significant enough to establish a strong sense of community. But this situation has changed almost entirely within the last decade. Thousands of Karens, young and old, have left their homeland and immigrated to several countries in Asia, Europe and continental America. Consequently, Karen community organizations – religious, social or otherwise – are mushrooming in many countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Canada, England and the United States of America.

From a more historical perspective, this emigration (or forced emigration, depending on how you look at it) of Karen people to different parts of the world is the biggest and most significant since the time they left Mongolia in B.C. 2017 and making their way eastwards to Yunnan and eventually settled in today's Burma around BC 739.

This changing political and demographic conditions dictate that when we talk about Karen, Karen identity or Karen progress, it cannot be narrowly confined within the scope of one ideological assembly, one geographic area, one religion or one linguistic group. Thus, it is critical that we construct the broadest possible Karen identity that is capable of accommodating multiple ideas, diverse backgrounds and a variety of cultural characteristics.

No individual should/can dictate whom to be invited to this Karen Reunion. But, whether to come or not is each individual's decision. "If they come, I will not join" attitude is utterly divisive and intrinsically destructive. It is even more ironic to hear that some alleged SPDC supporters are willing to meet, talk and discuss with other Karens; but a few of the so-called staunch Karen nationalists are unwilling or reluctant to meet, talk and discuss.

Certainly, this Karen Reunion is not about dividing Karen; it is about giving Karen people from all over the world an opportunity to reunite themselves. The invitation to this reunion is public as it has been made available online. Please see http://ieds.blogspot.com/2007/02/karen-reunion-2007-to-be-held-in.html. If any individual or organization does not want to join and meet with other fellow Karens, it is up to them. The spirit to meet, talk and discuss is the key here. No pre-conceived notion or judgment should sway our intention to bring together Karens from all kinds of background to meet and talk. If we avoid each other, the gap will get wider. Avoidance is not the answer.

So, join the Karen Reunion 2007 in KL, Malaysia, let your opinion be heard and contribute your constructive ideas for the progress of Karen people!

Introduction

2007-04-27T19:03:00.000-07:00

A Profile of Ordinary Activist

Naw Hnin Nanda Oo aka Naw P'saw Htee, an active member of Karen Community Association - UK, is a medical doctor by training. She was born and raised in Rangoon, Burma. Upon completion of her matriculation with distinctions in all six subjects from a prestigious TTC high school in Rangoon in 1993, P'saw Htee attended Rangoon University's Institute of Medicine (I) and received her medical degree.

"Since I was little, I wanted to be a doctor."

P'saw Htee came to England four years ago. She has been an active advocate for human rights in Burma, especially for the internally displaced Karen people. "I came to the UK to gain more experience and further my education so that I could help my people one day."

During her student years, P'saw Htee was active in the Student Christian Movement. "I am particularly interested in women rights issues." She was a volunteer health educator with Medecins Sans Frontieres -Holland and SCM, giving health education training on HIV/AIDS awareness among school children and church youths.

It is very sad to learn about the current situation in Burma as a whole. As we are living outside we could see the vast difference between our host countries and our home country. There are a lot of changes need to be done in every aspect.

The new generation young Karen, says P'saw Htee, should take the opportunities to study, acquire good education and work hard. "We must be good examples for our people and should be prepared to help our own underprivileged brothers and sisters back home."

"The most important thing is to never lose track of our own culture. It is our duty to maintain our language and culture; we have to master English and other languages at the same time, so that we could pass it onto our next generation. And never to forget those people who are still suffering back home."

A moment of profound grief

2007-04-17T17:45:00.000-07:00

On behalf of all the students from and of Burma, I share my utmost sympathy and prayers with all the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the most tragic events at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University on April 16, 2007.

Saw Kapi

Remember and Rethink

2007-03-30T19:26:00.000-07:00

Remembering the Heroes, Rethinking the Revolution

By – Saw Kapi
http://www.ieds. blogspot. com

More than 50 years have passed since the glorious Karen armed resistance was commenced in 1949 and our dead heroes – San C. Poe, Saw Pay Thar, Synedy Loo Ni, Saw Ba U Gyi, Saw San Kay, Mahn Ba Zan, Skaw Ler Taw, Gen. Bo Mya and countless others – have indeed persisted in our collective memory. The persistence of our memory of them, however, may not have been exactly the way they would have anticipated.

Most of those who claim to admire Saw Ba U Gyi and are vehemently against reviewing his principles have only the sketchiest knowledge of his life and goals. Somewhat surprisingly, the apotheosis of Saw Ba U Gyi’s four principles is accompanied by a parallel disappearance of the real understanding of his intellectual insights and the unmatched sacrifice he made. Gone is the educated, the intellectual, the selfless Saw Ba U Gyi, who sold thousands of acres of his inherited land to compensate the government money stolen from a government bank by his unruly followers. Gone is the confident warrior who trusted his people thus refused to accept a platoon of personal bodyguards offered to him and as a result was ambushed and killed by the enemy troops. To date, the principles he laid down and the future he wanted for his people have not been realized. Confined mainly in the Thai-Burma border area, the movement has been gradually losing its strength and consequently its relevancy.

In fact, it is troubling to note that there is a huge gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics - our chronic avoidance of answering tough questions, our remarkable inability to build a viable consensus to tackle the critical problems confronting our people, and our lack of confidence and skills in engaging the international community in the increasingly interconnected world.

The first step toward solving our people’s predicament and advancing our cause is to confront the naked realities before us as they really are, not as we fancy them to be. Imperative is the need for us to recognize the gap between our professed ideals as a people – the imagined Karen community – and the reality we witness everyday. The Karen as we would like to imagine ourselves is a homogeneous assembly, concentrating in one geographic area, speaking the same language, and subscribing to one religion. But such is not the case. The reality, whether we like it or not, is that there are three major Karen sub-groups; each has its own distinctive spoken and written language. While almost 35% of Sqaw Karen subscribes to Christianity, a large percentage of Pwo Karen remains faithful to Buddhism. A small percentage of both Pwo and Sqaw still practice animism.

Having settled over a wide range of geographic areas with notable concentrations in Mergui/Tavoy region, Irrawaddy delta area, Toungoo hill tracks, and Pa-pun district, Karen people within and beyond Burma intermingle with other ethnic nationalities. Although there are some exclusively Karen enclaves in different parts of Burma, it is hard to point to a single geographic region in which only Karen inhibits. This demographic reality leads us to seriously think through the issue of how we define Karen state. How can the recognition of Karen state be completed, until and unless we establish a consensus on what Karen state should constitute?

Equally important, nonetheless more complex and sensitive, is the question of what should be the official Karen language. Of course we must have the right to speak, read, write and be educated in our own language. But in actuality, we have three distinctive Karen languages, belonging to three different Karen sub-groups; which one do we want to use it for official communication? These are fundamental questions that need to be addressed in the broader national context with utmost rationality and sensitivity.

Establishing a collective consent of Karen people in response to these questions will be a crucial step toward deciding our own political destiny. Only this critical process of questioning and reviewing our movement will allow us to see that there is an urgent need to restructure the increasingly more fragmented Karen national identity, the need for a realistic and articulate Karen voice in the national and international politics.

Undoubtedly, the Karens need a new generation of political leadership that can articulate a national strategy that goes beyond the same voices that recycle the old frameworks. The new and younger political leadership must be able to grasp the complex dynamics of ethnicity, and yet attuned to the regional political situation of this progressively interdependent global order. After more than half a century, there is no doubt about Karens’ determination to fight militarily. On this long and painful path that the Karen people were and still are compelled to tread, it takes more than a strong will to reach our goal.

If the Karen struggle is to gain national and international support, intellectuals, few though they may have been among the Karens, will have to look beyond their narrowly specialized disciplines, and play their own role within the struggle. Many trained Karen intellectuals – such as Dr. San C. Poe, Saw Ba U Gyi, Saw Pay Thar, Saw Sydney Loo Ni, Mahn Ba Zan, Skaw Ler Taw – participated at the forefront of the struggle when the Karens began their movement. It is now time for the Karens to gather their strength from all walks of life, including the urban intellectuals, whose voice must play a critical role in promoting awareness and raising the profile of Karens in general, and the rural populace, whose steadfast resistance to forced cultural assimilation has always been crucial to the very existence of Karen today. In order to accomplish this task, the Karens need a leadership that is not only committed but also skillfully creative in policymaking and competently attuned to the international political situation.

As much as the Karens' quest for their collective right to self-determination is justified in principle, the practicality of implementing such a right can be complicated at best, but not impossible. The salience of ethnicity in Burma politics, after all, is a reality imposed by history that must be confronted with the consideration of appropriate political and cultural measures that at least recognize and respond to basic human needs for identity, security and equal participation. Inasmuch as the Karens are resolved in the armed resistance, they must also learn to compete, compromise and cooperate with their adversary on the political table. It is hoped that the Karens, if and when opportunity presents itself, will be ready to engage in national political dialogues not only with the Burman but also with other ethnic nationalities in mapping out the details of future Karen state and the country they called home, Burma.

The Need for a Paradigm Shift - A repost

2007-03-23T17:24:00.000-07:00

The Pitfalls of Burma's Opposition Movement and the Need for a Paradigm Shift

By Saw Kapi

Burma's opposition movement, a coalition of otherwise disparate groups – some have been fighting for a broader national autonomy for more than half a century but some started with a revolt in 1988 against bloody military coup – was known from the very beginning for not having strategic, collective vision for the future of the country. Over the past decade, the movement has become more and more misdirected in its strategy and approach to the issues facing the very people it claims to liberate. It found itself between two constituencies – on the one hand, the people of Burma and secondly the so-called international community composed of a handful of non-governmental organizations and governments in the west. As a result, it became a "captured" movement – responding more to the demands and desires of the international community and less to the daily concerns of the local people. If the opposition movement is to produce any positive result for the people of Burma, it has become clear now that it is desperately in need of shifting its current paradigm – from the negativities of condemnation and isolation of the country to the more constructive and inclusive approach that honestly addresses the problems facing the ordinary people of Burma.

The opposition voice over the years has been united by one aim: the removal of current military regime and the introduction of a new dispensation led by a new government, whatever it is. It is change for change’s sake. Evidently however, the opposition movement has not been very visible beyond the border areas, that is, the people inside the country do not feel its existence, let alone influence. When the military regime recently rearrested five student leaders, those in the opposition stood in awe, like a rabbit glaring at the headlights, hoping that the solution would come from outside. In the scheme of things, the movement has become desperate and has no significant role to play beyond promoting a signature campaign being launched inside by some courageous student leaders.

The biggest problem perhaps is that the movement seems to have lost its focus on the primary reasons for its emergence in 1988 and the key points of challenge against the military regime that really matter to the people. This is connected to the above point in relation to being "captured" by the international community. Instead of focusing on the wider primary reasons for people’s disgruntlement against the military regime, the movement became so obsessed with the matter of "human rights." This is by no means to discount that there have been human rights abuses in the country. However, what causes concern is the "reductionist" approach to the Burmese problem whereby everything is reduced to the human rights argument and must fit the human rights paradigm. Therefore every problem, every other issue which many of the groups that make up the movement against the government became quite simply a "human rights" issue. The key challenges against the government, such as political and economic mismanagement – which by the way was the primary problem long before the current human rights problems – have become marginalized topics that are discussed on a "by the way" basis. Emphasis is placed more on the removal of the regime than the reconstruction of the country.

It seems obvious why the movement has become so obsessed with human rights that it began to base its campaign against the regime on the basis of violation of human rights. It could not ably articulate the many issues represented by the many voices in the movement choir. Perhaps, some in the leadership listen to the tune and realize that there is too much discord, and therefore it is better to stick to one issue as the rallying point against the military regime: Human Rights – for that is universal and affects everyone. It universalizes the problem and covers all issues under a single umbrella.

This over-emphasis on human rights results in the loss of opportunities to challenge the military regime on key areas that directly affect people on the ground – education, health, infrastructure development, employment, economic progress, etc. Even the military regime knows this – while the regime is boasting about its infrastructure project in the rural parts of the country, what do we as a movement do to address the weaknesses of the current military regime regarding the education policies and practices? For instance, the restoration of human rights will not necessarily change the way public exams and healthcare system are run in Burma – the opposition movement needs to articulate these issues that find resonance among the ordinary people of Burma. Instead, all we hear is the military regimes attacks villages, arrest student leaders and violates human rights and nothing more.

There is no doubt that human rights matter to everyone, the knowledgeable and the ignorant alike. An opposition movement predicated upon human rights indeed sounds very right and sweet to the international community, and the introduction of democracy and promotion of human rights and removal of tyrannies is well in line with the current US foreign policy. But as a political strategy, it is necessary to put at the forefront, issues that are uppermost in the psyche of the people. It is good for the international community to understand our sufferings but it is also necessary to base the movement on issues that resonate in the national and local context – education, economic development and steady political progress.

Unfortunately, some of us have been relentlessly busy collecting names of "enemies," not friends, of the movement. The very movement that has aimed to establish a democratic Burma, in the end, has become so undemocratic that anyone speaking constructively of the military regime is considered enemy of the movement. Shifting from this paradigm, we will probably be better off collecting names of those who understand and support what we as a movement strive to achieve. After all must we not reason that if this military regime has been a big part of Burma's political problems, it could be a big part of solution as well?

Let us be real and pragmatic – a military regime with a firm grip onto power will not easily yield to the demands from a militarily and politically weak opposition. Constant condemnation of the military regime without credible counter proposal from us on issues directly related to the wellbeing of the people will not produce anything good either. Unless we refocus our energy and strategy on the practical need of the people, with whom the real power dwells, but continue to look to the international community – which frankly has more interests elsewhere and will continue to shout against the regime, but ultimately do nothing, the struggle that began almost half a century ago will continue, rather ineptly.

Introduction: P'doh Kweh Htoo

2007-03-19T17:04:00.000-07:00

SAW KWEH HTOO: A Profile of a Political Life

By – Paw Taw Oo

Known to be one of the most pragmatic leaders within the leadership, Kweh Htoo, a leading members of Karen National Union peace negotiation team in 2004, became the Governor of KNU’s Mergui/Tavoy District in 1990 and has been serving as a member of KNU’s CentralStanding Committee ever since. He accompanied Gen. Bo Mya to Rangoon on the historic trip made by the KNU leaders in January 2004 and remains active in the efforts ever since. [Click here to read Kweh Htoo's most recent analysis - in Karen - on KNU-led Karen resistance movement.]

Prior to joining the Karen resistance movement in 1974, Kweh Htoo studied economics at the Rangoon University but did not realize his educational dream due to the government’s closure of the university in response to a student movement known in Burma’s history as the “U Thant Crisis”.

At one point, Kweh Htoo found himself at odd with Gen. Bo Mya during the chaotic period immediately after the fall of Manerplaw, the long time KNU Headquarters. But, his constructive and yet critical review on Karen resistance movement earned him respects from many of his colleagues, including Saw David Taw, Chief of KNU’s foreign affairs, and Htoo Htoo Lay, one of the Group’s two Joint General Secretaries. “We as the organization need to evolve around the ever-changing circumstances,” once said Kweh Htoo. Among younger, emerging Karen political activists, he is regarded as one of the most progressive, who is well attuned to the changing regional political dynamics. “Our revolution needs new blood, new ideas, and new thinking.”

Despite his popularity in the southern district, Kweh Htoo is not without his critics in Karen politics. Some in the top KNU leadership feel that he has pushed for change within the organization much harder than the leadership can take.

At the advance of the overwhelmingly stronger Burmese troops to his area in 1997, he was able to display a skillful leadership in handling the orderly relocation of hundreds of thousands of Karen villagers from the previously KNU-controlled territory to the refugee camps along the Thai-Burmese border. Kweh Htoo won the heart of his people by maintaining close touch with the grassroots community though out the most difficult time. He basically managed to have kept the chaotic situation under control.

He traveled several times to Geneva and London during 1997 and 2002 to inform the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission, key British Parliamentary members as well as the Foreign Office, and the London based non-governmental organizations of the deteriorating human right situation and the urgently needed humanitarian assistance for internally displaced Karen people in Burma. While he understands the importance of international pressure, Kweh Htoo places a high priority on being close to his suffering people. Despite his busy schedule, he makes efforts to spend time in the Karen territory, travels from village to village in his district, urging his people to preserve high political alertness. He likes meeting and listening to what the ordinary people have to say. “He feels our pains,” once commented a villager.

He may be lesser known in Burma’s broader national politics, but Kweh Htoo, for many Karens, is a trusted leader with a progressive-mind, who does not compromise his people’s need with a place for his own in the national politics. Such, indeed, is a rare trait of leadership. Among grassroots Karen communities, he is considered one of the best hopes for the new wave of Karen resistance movement.

Kweh Htoo, the devote father of six, is married to Naw Sar Rah. Aside from politics, he retains keen interest in Karen language, literature, history and traditional music.

Question of the Day

2007-03-18T09:42:00.000-07:00

Question of the Day and a Question of Interpretation

By – Saw Kapi

The issue of reviewing a national principle or strategy is not as arcane as it sounds: resistance groups and governments alike, both in the past and at present, have reviewed and revised their policies and principles to suit their changing circumstances. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization), the Sinn Fein, and the ANC (African National Congress) have all done it and have done so successfully without compromising their national aspiration.

But it is often the small-minded nationalist rhetoric that clouds the substance of the issue and drags the people backward. Under the guise of nationalism, some self-proclaimed Karen firebrands like to insist that any talk or negotiation with the adversary is equivalent to surrender and therefore condemnable. In doing so they toy with the emotion of those who have suffered and sacrificed their lives under the Burmese military regime. Such type of "nationalists" often engages in slogan politics but consistently avoids answering the more important questions.

There are some politically sensitive and yet nationally important questions that the Karens as a people collectively need to answer. What should a Karen state constitute, for instance, territorially and administratively? We will not really know how and when the third principle of Saw Ba U Gyi could be completed if we cannot come up with a national consensus on this question. There must be a process where Karen political aspiration is transformed into a viable political consensus that can claim to be the collective voice of Karen people. This process of consensus building must be done well beyond the scope of Karen National Union (KNU), which has been in the periphery of Burmese politics for the past several decades.

The fact that fifty million people of Burma being under the oppressive military regime does not give any automatic right for any opposition group to claim political legitimacy over the people. Those with the fiercest rhetoric need to come to term with realities on the ground and objectively answer some of the most fundamental questions that challenge us. In doing so, questioning, interpreting and deciphering the cornerstone principles of our resistance movement – as a whole or in part – is seemingly inevitable.

A Civil Discussion: Views on Current Debates in the Karenissues Forum

2007-03-15T16:42:00.000-07:00

By Naw Show Ei Ei Tun
School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Johns Hopkins University

It's been a privilege to read what's on the mind of my fellow Karen people. I have no single doubt that you all love the Karen people and want to do something for a positive change in whatever way you can. Otherwise, you won't even be reading or participating in this forum.

On the Four Principles, I strongly do think it is a very good thing that we all put the Four Principles on the table and openly discuss about it. I appreciate all those who have boldly shared your thoughts and opinions. Otherwise, we all turn next to our graveyard and find out our revolution is far from reaching its goal before we realized it. Some of us have even got very emotional and anxious as if we were betraying the Karen revolution by critically reviewing the Four Principles. And I acknowledge it is very hard to swallow as many lives have been lost, valuable lands and farms have been taken away, and families have been torn apart. Thankfully, this forum is not a contest of racing who is more faithful or loyal to the Karen people, but to openly discuss with an "open-mind" to explore feasible options and alternatives. I don't want to make any comment on the soundness of the Four Principles and what not, because I just simply do not know enough about it. And I have never read the actual writing of Saw Ba Oo Gyi either. But I just wanted to share some perspectives.

A struggle of such is not only unique to the Karen people. And it is not only among the Karen leaders or only Saw Ba Oo Gyi who came up with a set of principles to initiate and guide a certain revolution. Look around us.

Even "Marxism," the idea of one of the greatest philosophers, political economists and revolutionaries, Karl Marx from Germany, had been so powerful and influential across the globe that it even divided the world apart and turned it into a major Cold War. But finally people do have to all acknowledge that Marxism, no matter how ideal it is as an ideology, does not work as it glorious slogan sounds. Even still, Marx did not leave only four sentences but carefully articulated in an entire book (I cannot remember how many pages). At the same time, now a days "democracy" itself is now facing numerous challenges and uncertainties. If you want to know more, please read the article written by Fareed Zacharia, called "the Rise of Illliberal Democracy."

Let me give you one example of someone who strongly subscribed "his version" of "Marxism": the founding father of today's People's Republic of China (PRC), Mao Zedong. Firmly believing in "Marxist" ideology, Mao tried to implement it in many ways, the two most well-known or perhaps, tragic of which were the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Both of them turned out to be a deadly blunder and put millions of Chinese starved to dead. Mao cut off diplomatic or trade relations with other countries. At Mao's death, his very close colleague and subordinate, Deng Xiaoping, realizing the critical needs of his countrymen on the ground and sensing changes in the global world order, decided to not be immensely ideological as his leader, Mao but to be boldly "pragmatic." As such, he took a sea change policy with the famous slogan "whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mouse" and adopted an Open Door economic policy and began normalizing diplomatic relations with other countries. Was Deng a betrayal of PRC's founding father? Till today, as much as the Chinese leaders and people continue to revere Mao as the great leader of modern China, they also acknowledged and admitted that Mao's policy did not work. These are not my arguments but widely accepted facts of life in the history of China.

Next, please allow me to give another example: a very simplified version of Indonesia's story although it is not precisely analogous to China's story. By discussing very briefly about such as complicated issue, I know I'm risking the danger of being miss-interpreted. Even if it has to be that way, let it be so. Take a look at the founding father of modern Indonesia, Sukarno. On the verge of getting Independence from the Dutch colonial power, President Sukarno came up with the idea of "Five Principles" or "Pancasila" as a recipe for Indonesian nationalism:
1. Belief in the one and only God
2. Just and civilized humanity
3. The unity of Indonesia
4. Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations amongst representatives
5. Social justice for the whole of the people of Indonesia

Each of the principles and all as a whole sound very good, inclusive and forward-looking. However, when Sukarno become highly ideological about nationalism but paid no attention whatsoever to the economic deprivation of his country at the time, he has no choice but to step down. In fact, he was even put under house arrest. People cared less about the principles on the ivory tower as they were not meeting the brutal needs of the people on the ground. Despite of all, the people of Indonesia till today respect and acknowledge Sukarno as the founding father of modern Indonesia, but not with a blind eye to his weaknesses. His daughter, Megawati, was even elected as the President of the country over thirty years later.

The point of all is that it is nothing wrong with reviewing the Four Principles. Please continue to do so. But please don't loose focus on aiming a better future or a positive change for the war-torn land and war-weary Karen people. But we should try our best not to hold personal grudges upon each other. If not, it will be counter-productive and fruitless. And I am not saying the Four Principles will end up like Marx's ideology or Sukarno's Five Principles as I said I personal don't know enough about it at the moment.

In fact, those who think that critically reviewing the Four Principles isn't a good idea, I would encourage you to come up with a set of arguments and shed some lights on how the Karen can achieve their goals by subscribing and practicing the Four Principles or share an evaluation of how the Karen have achieved their goals so far by doing so. I personally cannot wait to hear what you all have to say and I believe everyone will be benefited from such an analysis.

On Culture, Identity and National Survival: Discussion Continued

2007-03-10T08:25:00.000-08:00

By Neineh Plo
Indiana University, Bloomington

Our concern here is real and very close to our hearts. The concern is not of our own as individuals. Rather, it is a concern for the whole of our people, or “nation.” And, to have concern for our “nation” is to have concern for the positive flourishment of our “nationalism.”

Let me elaborate on what I mean by nationalism. While there are many different meanings of nationalism, and many of them carry negative connotations; I take the meaning as a collectively shared concern for the very existence of our people – that concern to me is our nationalism.

This is the closest meaning of the word “nationalism” I could come up with. Further explanations that carry positive connotations of our nationalism can be expanded at your own liberty.

With this definition of nationalism, what I meant in my first letter “To Live” is more than traditional notion of culture. Of course, I appreciate your analyses and discussions on culture. Indeed, it is very important that we preserve our culture.

And, I agree that culture is subject to change. A culture will have to adapt itself in response to the surrounding environments. Every year, we can celebrate our New Year, wearing our colorful traditional clothes, playing our musical instruments, and eating our traditional food. Even though our children who grow up in foreign countries cannot speak our languages, we can make them preserve this culture of ours; if this is all what we mean by culture. Of course, I assume that every one of us will mean more than this by culture.

For me, culture comes under the scope of nationalism and means the very existence of our people. What we are being threatened to lose now is not merely our culture. More importantly, it is our existence, our desire to establish our political independence by ourselves and for ourselves. It is our nationalism, the very desire that we have been fighting to preserve, protect, and defend for generations and generations. It is our nationalism that many of us once held in our hands, and for its sake we proclaimed right before we resettled: “I am leaving my country and people for a land full of opportunities.”

In a private discussion with a Karen friend of mine, she told me that nationalism can form and deform itself. In other words, people can make it up and destroy it. But, she continued, a collective and common desire for the very existence of our people and to flourish is what constitutes our nationalism.

If returning home to Kawthoolei or Karenni means facing hungry lions, then our remaining people there are already in the caves of hungry lions. So, is there any chance for our nationalism to survive?

If our concern for nationalism is confined to statelessness or being stateless in Thailand, all we will be struggling for is a status. Then, is there any chance for our nationalism in a larger context to survive?

There is no “one” solution for this great concern. I do not have solutions. But there are two things I do not try to do with this discussion: I do not try to suggest anything and I do not blame any group – who remain, who seek status in Thailand, and who resettle in third countries. But I seek for any possibilities that would help us to resolve our dilemma and concern, rather collectively.

I welcome any further comments you might have and I hope that you do not take my propositions as an offence.

On Culture, Identity and National Survival: A Discussion

2007-03-10T04:52:00.000-08:00

By Wahlay Ray

Talking about three choices, we will face hungry lion if we go back to Burma, we will also face unfriendly bear if we are in Thailand (I’m not generalizing the fact). No doubt, third country can be the land of opportunity. Well, talking about loyalty to culture, it is very challenging especially in term of preserving our norms, values, mores and symbol. I have to admit that I have already lost some of the Karen material cultures in the third country. If I myself lost some of those, there is no question for the next generation.

I’m not defining culture as a static element; I'd rather be progressive and dynamic. I do believe that culture can be exchanged between societies, in cultural diffusion. However, the problem is we have tendency to use our culture and belittling of other’s cultures or believe in cultural relativism. Basically what I’m trying to say is, cultural adaptation to technological changes and social invention are also needed to be considered On the other hand, maintaining one’s own culture including identity is an obligation. Wishing you all the best.

On Culture, Identity and National Survival: A Response

2007-03-10T04:46:00.000-08:00

By Hsa June
University of Wisconsin, Riverfalls

Regarding the choices you propose I prefer the first choice. I can see your concern relating to the extinction of our culture in the next coming two or three generation. But, for me, I don't have that much concern. Why? Based on our current situation I don't see the differences between living inside Burma, Thailand, Australia, United States, or European countries. If one's live in Burma or Thailand and still able to preserve the tradition and culture, I believe, living in third countries will not be super difficult to do the same. Those who grow up in Burma speak Burmese and those that are raised in Thailand speak Thai. And I am sure not all of them able to preserve their culture and tradition. Many of us already live in a land where we are homeless and why not take a chance this time and look forward for a better future? I don't mean to abandon our motherland; however, weighing between leaving and staying, the benefit that we will get out from leaving seem heavier to me.

Just for example, if I live in Thailand I know for sure that I can never be able to attend university. You may disagree with me here, but let look at the reality. Let say even if I can attend university in Thailand, I will still have to live under constant threat and fear of the thai authority. Or I may have to buy legal document under someone name to live legally. If I do this, am not supporting corruption? Then, when will the corruption end? Or am I not living under guilt? In the other hand, if one can come to third country, at least he or she is freely to work and support for the family financially. A person can also go to school and have education. I don't think having education will make a person abandon the culture. If a person does that is his or her choice. Not all the seeds will grow, some will die and some will surely survive. My point is I have no fear for the extinction of my culture; rather, I am more concern with the danger where lives have to go through daily constant fear and threat from authority.

Living in Thailand, you never know what will happen the next moment of your life. If you go outside, you have to watch out for the police. They are like a crazy dog; they can bite you at any time. If you cross the gate, you have to raise your arm to give them respect or sometime give them an envelope. And if one can still maintain the culture under this condition, is not easier to maintain culture in third country? I write too much and I will stop here from now. I have more in my mind, but I better go study to pass the test.

One Culture, Identity and National Survival

2007-03-10T04:26:00.000-08:00

A Conversation on Culture and National Survival

This is Neineh Plo of Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. I am new to this discussion group. It is my pleasure to be a part of you this way. I hope our meetings in this particular place will enrich our knowledge and experience, and bring us closer to our people and homeland.

I would like to thank the host of this Karen Issues for accepting me and signing me up to be a member. Thank you.

Regarding the stateless issues the young minorities or hill tribes of Thailand are facing now, I also want to share with you what I wrote to a good friend of mine a few days ago. It is not mainly the stateless issues of the hill tribes in Thailand. But mainly, it is about the plights of our people in refugee camps and their futures.

Neineh Plo

The letter follows:

I talked to some of my good friends in MHS the other day. We talked about our going "home" plans and then, more importantly, about the refugees and the Palat.

As you might have known, the Thai authority’s plan is that it has given the refugees three choices out of which they will have to choose one: to go to a third country, to return to Burma, or to remain in Thailand as the hill tribe people of Thailand.

I think you can pretty much imagine the consequences of each of these three choices. All the choices do not promise a future for our people and our current struggle.

Resettlement in a third country would give our people some sort of opportunities for education and business to live by. But in terms of "nationalism," I don't believe that our people in third countries will survive more than two generations. Even if they do, it will be very weak and dim, and would be able to continue no more than three generations. So, the first choice is not a good choice.

Returning to our country in this time of situation could mean a total vanishing of our people. We can be sure that we are not welcome by the regime for we would not bring any sort of interest it wants. Nowadays, our Karenni resistance movement is not as attractive to it as the KNU's or SSA's is. It is very unlikely that they would care whether we continue or cease fighting it. But this does not mean I have lost faith in my people’s struggle for freedom.

If a "democratic" government like that of Thailand could do such things to systematically eradicate the existence of our people, then the willingness of the racist, chauvinistic, and ethnocentric regime of Burma to do the same thing is out of question. Does my argument make sense? So, the second choice is not a good one either.

Remaining in Thailand with the status of hill tribe people would sound nice and practicable to uncritical ears. But carefully considering the plights of hundreds of thousands of Thai "hill tribe" people, it makes me so sad that our people could become one of them.

First of all, the so-called Thai hill tribe people who hold "green cards" as their identity cards are not considered the citizens of Thailand, and have a much lower class or status than the majority Thais who hold "white card", which indicate that they are "full citizens" of Thailand.

As a result, the green card holders are deprived of their basic human rights very systematically. For example, they cannot go to colleges within Thailand or even finish high schools because of their status. Another example: they cannot leave their townships or territories without the proper permission of their respective authorities who hold "white card." And, it takes a long time for them to acquire full citizenship.

Given these facts about these Thai hill tribe people, it would be so unfortunate for our people to become one of them. And, if we don’t have other choices but to become the hill tribe people of Thailand , then the result is that the survival of our people’s nationalism could end up the same way it would do in the third countries. So, the third choice is not good either.

Then, what is good for us? I don’t know. But I do know that I want to live, and I want my people to live - to live as a “nation,” free and full of dignity. To live as a group of human beings, enjoying all the rights given to us as human beings by nature. Thank you for your time with this long email. I appreciate it very much. My best wishes to you.

Regards,

Neineh Plo

Rethinking the Four Principles

2007-03-04T05:02:00.000-08:00

Dare or Be Damned: Rethinking the Four Principles

By Naw May Oo

To many people within and outside of the Karen National Union (KNU), a call to review the famous Four Principles, also known as Saw Ba U Gyi’s Four Principles, is an act could qualify the person who commit it to troublemaker, less than patriotic, almost a traitor. That said, it does not mean that such call has never been made before, as implied by Aung Naing Oo in his recent article published in Irrawaddy. The article seemed well-meant and suggestive, but also seemed a bit too reserved. Perhaps, it could be that Aung Naing Oo was being more courteous than critical as he used to be. Nevertheless, in order to rethink on the Four Principles, there is nothing to disagree with Aung Naing Oo in suggesting that the Karen people collectively should come together as a people who have carried out the half a century plus long revolution against the tyrannical rule of successive ethnocentric military regimes.

First, a need to review the Four Principles does not mean a need to change the Principles, per se. The Four Principles were laid down by a Cambridge educated barrister, an intellectual, who had to be extraordinarily cautious by training of every word he uttered. The words seem to have been carefully chosen so that they can stand the test of time. It was unfortunate that Saw Ba U Gyi did not have much time to elaborate on his principles and too unfortunate for the Karen people of today that he did not leave us a commentary that would serve as a manual to interpreting his words. Yes, I am being sort of tongue-in-cheek here. The words contained in the Four Principles are simple. It does not require a degree from Cambridge in order to understand them. Perhaps, it is our way of reading the principles that can be problematic than the principles really are. A call to review the principles only intends to open up discussions and debates that might generate new visions and understandings, the values that true revolutionaries always seek.

Second, reviewing the Four Principles requires us to have a thorough look again into the particular words and terms chosen by Saw Ba U Gyi.

The first principle is: “Surrender is out of the question.” The great legal mind was cautious enough not to use the terms such as “negotiation” or “compromise.” He used “surrender,” and it was apparently quite deliberate. But, let’s look at the problems – some of which have been pointed out by Aung Naing Oo in his article – faced by the Karen Revolution over the past forty years. It has been a trend among the KNU leadership and the revolutionary Karens to simply, and rather cheaply, interpret “negotiate” or “compromise” as equal to “surrender.” Every time there was a move – initiated by whomever – aiming to negotiate or compromise, the individuals or groups would be labeled as betrayers of the Four Principles as the move would be considered “surrender.” For those of us who are familiar with the method and propaganda used by the successive Burmese governments, we could almost understand why some KNU officials and some Karen people would understand the terms such as “negotiate” or “compromise” is equivalent to “surrender.” However, that is besides the point. Political expediency is the name of the game and it seems to have been understood by Saw Ba U Gyi. Had he meant that surrender includes compromising and negotiating, he would have also condemned the KNU’s choice to go for the establishment of a “genuine federal union.” But, I doubt our leader was of that limited wisdom when he laid down the Four Principles that successfully persuaded the entire Karen population to uphold them and to continue the Revolution in accordance with the principles.

The second principle reads: “We shall retain our arms.” Saw Ba U Gyi was said to be reluctant to start the armed struggle although he was all for other KNU’s initiatives otherwise. In response to the pressure from colleagues and comrades, Saw Ba U Gyi left his position in the cabinet during the colonial era, and he joined the armed struggle whole heartedly as he also provided decisive and undisputed leadership. Being educated in Cambridge, one of the world’s first-class universities, having read law and making it through to become a barrister, Saw Ba U Gyi was more than aware of the phrase he uttered: “We shall retain our arms.” He was less instructive and more determinative. I find him less instructive, because he would have said in what form and how we shall retain our arms had he been more definitive. I can imagine that Saw Ba U Gyi would still be smiling with content when he sees the Karen people have their own national guard to safeguard our Karen State and when there is Kawthoolei Police Department to provide safety and security to the Karen people within the Federal Union of Burma. We do not know exactly what he envisioned when he uttered the second principle in particular, but it is not difficult to understand that he envisioned the end goal of the Karen Revolution beyond being armed fighters. (Here, the second principle is more of a determinative means and not an end goal.)

The third principle is rather an adamant claim: “Recognition of Karen State must be complete.” For those of us who have lived through and under the successive Burmese governments – the AFPFL (U Nu government), the BSPP (Ne Win regime), the SLORC (Sen. Gen. Saw Maung regime), and now the SPDC led by Sen. Gen. Than Shwe – know well that Karen State or Kawthoolei (according to the 1974 Constitution) has always been nothing but an empty name. The “Karen State” envisioned by Saw Ba U Gyi was and is rather an independent polity, which could otherwise be bound only by the Union’s Constitution, consented by the Karen people. Most certainly, Saw Ba U Gyi anticipated a “Karen State” governed by the will of the Karen people. It seems apparent that his legal education guided him to deliberately choose the term “Karen State” rather than “Karen Country” or “Karen Nation,” even if such avoidance could have been against his personal desire. Legally, a “Karen State” can simply mean a political system of a body of people who are politically organized (Black’s Law, 7th Ed.). Saw Ba U Gyi left us with a simple yet particular term so that the Karen Revolution would not find itself trapped as our struggle for freedom continues well into the twenty first century where the notion of “state” has been tested by the rapid changes in our world.

The forth principle declares: “We shall decide our own political destiny.” Every people of distinct culture, tradition, history, and language aspire to define and decide what their political destiny is. And, they demonstrate that inherent aspiration clearly in various ways and they pursue it almost at any cost. Equally, that was a simple desire Saw Ba U Gyi had for his people. There was no further elaboration as to what our political destiny was to the great leader. However, for someone who had eloquently and undisputedly laid down the previous three principles, political destiny as the forth principle could not be anything less. Of course, as for a man who led the fight for freedom and rights, his further elaboration on Karen’s “political destiny” could have been consciously meant for the Karen to decide collectively as a people. If we have not done so yet, perhaps, this is the time to do it. We may well be charged guilty – in the eyes of our younger and next generation to come – for having taken fifty eight years to come together as a people to collectively decide upon what our political destiny is. However, since there is no end to a struggle for human dignity, which the Karen struggle is about, we might as well consider coming together so that we can decide collectively what our political destiny is to be. In a way, this would also revitalize the Karen Revolution, which has been known as the oldest armed resistance in Burma.

Third, there are two concluding observations: first, a call for reviewing the Four Principles is not necessarily a challenge either to the current KNU leadership or a call to demolish the Four Principles. In fact, a call for reviewing the Four Principle is an inevitable challenge for all Karen people to face it if we are to achieve our goal – liberation from a tyrannical rule, free from forced indoctrination of an ethnocentric regime, to be able to live as a people with dignity, and to reclaim our right to govern ourselves. Second, the Four Principles were laid down by the great mind of the time with the hope to guide us through our struggle to victory and not to lead us into despair. We are to question ourselves and our situation today what the Four Principles are to us and if they serve the purpose as set out by Saw Ba U Gyi. If not, we are to answer why and how we are going to resolve our national problem, again, as guided by the lasting Four Principles.

Finally, by all means, I do not claim to have come up with a clear and precise meaning of the Four Principles. I cannot possibly know what Saw Ba U Gyi actually meant when he may have deliberately said those words in the Four Principles. However, reading and studying his works and words, at least, I know what he did not mean: he did not mean –among others – that we should never negotiate or compromise; nor he meant that we must always fight with arms; nor could he have meant that the Karens should not go for anything less than a country even if it is against the entire world community; nor he meant that the Karen people’s political destiny can be decided by an organization that may well be disregarding the will of the people. I cannot help but admire the wisdom of our late leader, a great legal mind, and a visionary whose intelligence and eloquent principles continue to form an equally persuasive and lasting guidance, even after fifty eight year. I believe that he has left us with the most elastic principles, thought out and written with a complete understanding that people and situation can and do (and should) change with time. I find no reason why we should incarcerate ourselves within a rigid interpretation or understanding of the Four Principles. It would be yet another crime for us to commit if we are to do so, and the next generation Karen will find it difficult to forgive us.

(Naw May Oo is a doctoral student at the Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, currently working on a dissertation entitled “Constitutional Design in Multiethnic States: Fostering Coexistence through Effective Public Policies- Burma, Public Health, and Malaria.”)

National Reconciliation in Burma?

2007-02-21T16:20:00.000-08:00

Will there ever be a national reconciliation in Burma?

If there should be one, on whose term wil it be? Who will need to compromise and why? How does a national reconciliation process usually work in the international arena? Let's think out loud and think free! Post your comments below.

Thank you.

HIGHLIGHTS: Karen Reunion 2007 to be held in Malaysia

2007-02-14T19:47:00.000-08:00

Karen Reunion 2007 to be held in Malaysia

You are cordially invited to join us at the Karen Reunion 2007, which will be hosted by the Karen Community in Malaysia. Our purposes are to get to meet Karen fellows across the world, and to promote the fields in language, literature, culture, education and economic well-being. We look forward to meeting all of you!!!

Date: June 15-16, 2007
Place: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

For more detail information, please contact the following persons.

Contact persons:
Uncle Michael (Singapore) Email: sawmichael@hotmail.com
Uncle Gideon and Ko Thein Han (Malaysia) Email:Theinhans@gmail.com
Ardeth Thawnghmung (USA) Email: dehlay@yahoo.com
Saw Victor (Australia) Email: sawvic@yahoo.com

Announcement: Going Home Where We Belong

2007-02-11T19:07:00.000-08:00

Going Home Where We Belong*

A group of young Karens and Karenni currently studying in the United States plan to take a trip back home this summer of 2007. The purpose is to share, to learn, to live and to understand, to be back in touch with the realities of our homeland.

The idea of Going Home Where We Belong comes from those who have been away from a place considered home for various reasons. Many of us are students – both undergraduate and graduate. We have been in different parts of the United States, mainly to go to school, and thus far, only a few of us have had a chance to go back home. Some of us have been in the U.S for much more than ten years and some, two years or less. Nevertheless, we all share a common feeling about home – we belong there and we miss to be there. So was born the idea of going home.

As we began to formulate this idea, we felt compelled that we would not go home empty-handed. Of course we do not mean this in the materialistic sense. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that our peoples and families back home love to have us back and will welcome us in any shape or form. However, there is an obligation on our part, for which there is no contractual agreement to be found, that we serve as an agent of change for those who are still caught under the bleakest situation ourcountry is faced with. This obligation comes from no organization, no individual, and no authority of any kind. In fact, this obligation comes from our very status as free-men and -women who have the privilege of aspiring to, and for some of us, achieving, our dreams in life.

On the other hand, we certainly do not want to foster the view that our peoples back home are always in need and expecting hand-outs. We certainly do not want to go home as those who are coming to save them from a hellish situation, for we are neither donors with tons of money nor are we mythical beings with power to redeem. On the contrary, we believe that we have yet so much to learn from the situation on the ground, most certainly from the people who constantly live under extremely difficult and uncompromising conditions, and from those who have so clearly demonstrated the limitless courage and endurance that are necessary in order to survive and even hold onto their dreams for the future.

Furthermore, we are of the opinion that we could learn by teaching, and vice versa, teach by learning. Many of us have been trained in different fields of expertise, and many of us do have certain areas of interest in which we could share our knowledge. Therefore, we have decided that this first trip back home will be based on three main goals: to educate ourselves with the situation on the ground so that we could prepare for better services in the future; to share our knowledge with those who certainly would be interested; and to build a stronger bond between us despite the geographic disparities. Ultimately, we expect that a trip as such will humble us in many ways, will enable us to appreciate education more, and will strengthen our commitment to the betterment of our peoples’ future.

If you would like to join with us on a trip back home, please contact:

Neineh Plo at: everploe@yahoo.com for more information.

Thank you for visiting IEDS Blog.

Karen Destiny

2007-02-09T18:26:00.000-08:00

To Dismiss and Split: A Karen Destiny?

By - Saw Kapi

Htain Maung, a long time Karen rebel commander, who fought alongside General Bo Mya against the Burmese army since his birth, was dismissed last week from the Karen National Union (KNU) for his unauthorized peace deal with the Burmese military regime. Many Karen and non-Karen alike wonder what have gone wrong with the KNU leadership. Observers of the Burmese politics anxiously await to see how pages of history will turn for the sixty year old resistance group.

How could this lifetime revolutionary, who commands one of the strongest brigades of Asia's oldest resistance force – the Karen National Liberation Army, suddenly betray the creed of his own organization and believe that he will be able to make peace with the regime he has fought against for more than half a century? This is a puzzling question that the Karen people from all over the world and the Burmese opposition forces seek to find an answer.

Betrayed by its once well-respected commander, the KNU leadership attempts to explain the disgraceful political fallout by quickly denouncing Htain Maung as a turncoat who repeatedly deviated from the principles laid down by the 13th Congress of the group. The alternative view is that Htain Maung, being a soldier with no formal education background, was simply deceived by the Burmese regime, and as a result his political judgment was scarred by the possible business opportunities and territorial control allegedly offered to him by the military regime. But then this is not the first time that Htain Maung is going to engage in the border business, nor is he the only high-ranking KNLA official involved in business as such. Certainly, Htain Maung does not need to abandon the KNU to do so. All these mining and logging business opportunities have always been there for him and he has been doing that all along. The problem seems to be much deeper and more serious than one man's selfishness and betrayal.

On the one hand, if the crux of the issue is to uphold the political strategies laid down by the 13th KNU Congress, the bloodless but perhaps apt dismissal of the disgruntled general signifies that there exists a superiority of politics and political ideology over military in the KNU. Current top KNU leaders such as Saw Ba Thin, Mahn Sha, David Tharkabaw and David Htaw, for instance, are all civilian leaders with no combat experience, while Htain Maung is widely regarded as a capable military commander. On the other hand, it could well be that the recent turn of events are grave consequences of lacking open and honest political debate within the KNU. Aside from accusing Htain Maung and his followers of being selfish, there seems to be no other serious, substantive review of policies and strategies of the organization.

The dismissal of the general, no matter how disgraceful it is, may have been a political necessity for the KNU in order for it to remain relevant in Burma's political landscape. But obviously Htain Maung’s breakaway has robbed the already troubled KNU of one of its few military commanders with reputable combat experience.

At the moment, the political scene along the Thai-Burma border is rather poignant and even evocative of worries that a weakening KNU means a weaker Burmese opposition overall. For the Burmese generals from Naypyidaw who closely follow this political development, they have reasons to suppose that decades of brutalities that they impose upon Karen and other ethnic nationalities may have destroyed not only the livelihood but the hopes, and in some cases the convictions, of some of those who have fought against them over half a century. For the time being, the future of the sixty year old Karen resistance movement, as it continues to dismiss and split, is rather less assured.

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

Toward a well-meaning national consciousness - Abridged

2007-02-04T09:27:00.000-08:00

Towards a Well-Meaning National Consciousness

by - Saw Kapi

Speaking of national consciousness, it is timely to recall some of the most promient figures in Karen history. Dr. San C. Po, arguably the Karen equivalent of Dr. Sun Yet Hsin (of China), was one of the foremost Karen intellectual nationalists, who articulated eloquently, albeit unsuccessfully, the need for Karen independence. Intellectual leader such as Saw Aung Hla, the one and only Karen historian to date, sought to establish a credible Karen migration history. Dr. T. Thanbyar and Poe Lay Tay, despite their close affiliation with Christian religion, were able to expound the entire Karen people on how we as a people – or areguably as an "imagined community" – should collectively develop and move forward. Mahn Saw Bu, a well known community leader from the Delta Region, for instance, attempted to sacrifice his own life to save the lives of fellow innocent Karens, who were about to be executed by the Japanese troops. He was said to have prefixed his name with both “Mahn” and “Saw” to capture both sentiments of Pwo and Sqaw, crossing tribal lines in displaying his nationalism. Saw Ba Oo Gyi, a man of selfless character, notwithstanding the world class education he received, disregarded a professional career and did his utmost for the Karen people. He uncompromisingly led the Karen National Union during its early turbulent years and committed his whole life for his people.

When a nationalistic sentiment is driven by constant reasoning – of learned individuals – and guided precisely by the realities of the environment, it can instigate endless creative power of nationalities, thereby transforming itself into unstoppable driving force for change. This sort of nationalism is capable of advancing a nation forward, not driving her backward – politically and economically.

Historically, Karen nationalism has been the one that entails utmost dedication and profound sacrifice. These leaders, whose names mentioned above, had contributed their skills and expertise in numerous ways to uplifting their people, both under the British colonial rule and in the early period of post-independence Burma. And yet unfortunately, the struggle hitherto is unfinished. Between the resource-hungry neighbors and the ruthless military regime, the Karens are up against enormous uphill battles in their fight for self-determination. In the wake of this socio-political reality, it is truly compulsory that the Karens, especially revolutionary Karens, adopt the kind of nationalism that not only accepts ideological diversity but also encourages political pragmatism and fosters strategic creativity.

A far-sighted nationalism is the kind that encourages our people to seek out learning, acquire knowledge, and explore new ideas and ways to achieve our desired goal. Besides, a pragmatic nationalist learns from the goodness of other people and contributes positively and practically to the well being of his or her people. Shortsighted nationalism, however, boasts only about its goodness and yet tenaciously hides its flaws; therefore those who subscribe to it are not capable of learning anything from their shortfalls but bound to repeat them.

A well-meaning nationalism promotes peace, and together with a clear vision and subsequent actions, it can lead a nation to social hermony, political maturity and economic prosperity. While a broad-minded nationalism can preserve diversity and encourage creativity, the narrow-minded one maintains "we-are-better" attitude, is very trivial in essence and utterly divisive in nature. Thus, we shall embrace the former and reject the latter.

No individual or organization should have the monopoly over the destiny of our people. Each individual Karen must play his or her own role to contribute to our collective wellbeing. To echo the words of former president Nelson Mandela, no one is irreplaceable. That includes this author, the readers and all those leaders and ordinary people that we know. One must not fail to note that if the love for our people alone could carry Karen people to their desired goal; we would have already reached there for a long time. Regrettably, that has not been the case.

In the end, our given history compels us to tread on the path of this unfinished struggle – a struggle for national coherence and advancement. It is critically necessary that we continue on with a sense of pragmatism and far-sighted vision. The future of Karen people will be much brighter if we can avoid dwelling in our own feeling of insecurity, but focus on achieving excellence in seeking knowledge and developing our expertise.

It is time for us to embrace the kind of national consciousness that encourages Karen people to think, to reason, to question, to learn, to compete, to cooperate and to be creative in this increasingly interconnected world. The world we live in is a competitive world. The economy we are compelled to be a part of is a knowledge-based economy. It is in these contexts that, I believe, we must seek to develop and adopt a true, meaningful and peaceful existence.

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

New Year, New Songs

2007-01-13T14:32:00.000-08:00

Album Review

James: "Father of Contemporary Karen Revolution"

Karen music lovers begin the year 2007 with the unexpected premiere of a powerful musical work by James, a well-known Karen singer. The album, unconventionally titled "Father of Karen Revolution," gains a great deal of attention from young Karens currently living overseas. It received both an enormous reception from the fans and great critical reviews. In one song the rhyming lyrics calls for listeners' attention to “breaking news,” asking, "if they have heard it." "The Karen people now have a homeland. If you want it, wave your hands."

The lyrics provide a layer of stories to be told upon and vividly remind the listeners of the Karens' continued struggle for a national identity and freedom.

James shows his impressive aptitude for his chosen instruments. With ecstatic background harmony from a uniquely Pwo Karen traditional tune, the album is nothing short of superb against the backdrop of bone (Burmese drum) and lin-kwin (Burmese cymbals), which makes the collection of songs memorable.

The intense counterpoint between heavy rock and Karen traditional instrumental sound creates both metaphysical tension and musical passion. The best reason to purchase this recording is undeniably the obvious message that the album itself brings to light – contemporary situation of the Karen people and their thirst for a collective identity. It is also a unique fusion of modern and traditional instruments.

"The piercing Pwo Karen rhythm combined with the overtly touching lyrics make me burst into tears," said a young Karen student currently studying Washington , DC .

By - Saw Kapi

http://kwekalu.net/update/jamereview.gif

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

A Symbol of Karen Resistance

2006-12-28T05:00:00.000-08:00

OBITUARY - SAW BO MYA: A Symbol of Resistance

By – Saw Kapi

The quiet recognition among the Karen people is that General Saw Bo Mya is the one and only symbol of contemporary Karen resistance movement. Born and raised in Hteemukee Village of Mudraw District, Saw Bo Mya belongs to the Sqaw Karen tribe and was an animist until he met his wife, Naw Lar Poe, who later ‘saved’ him to accept the Baptist Christian faith, which, in this case, happens to be that of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination. Saw Bo Mya founded the Karen National Liberation Army and was its Commander-in-Chief until 2000. In the 1980’s he was the paramount leader of KNU or the Karen National Union, the organization that has spearheaded the Karens’ struggle for self-determination since 1949.

Without any formal education, Saw Bo Mya proved himself to be capable of earning the respects and fear from Karen people of all backgrounds, both Pwo and Sqaw, from urban as well as rural. He actually spent his whole life in defense of his people, militarily, although he fell short of successfully articulating the Karen cause. More than that, his instrumental role in building alliances, both ethnic and broader national opposition, reflects not only his sphere of political influence but also his vision for a solution to Burma’s decade long problem. In the early 1980s he helped forge a broad armed ethnic alliance known as the National Democratic Front. In the 1990s, he was elected the first Chairman of Democratic Alliance of Burma, which, albeit largely defunct by now, is the broadest opposition alliance Burma’s politics ever saw. When the Kachin Independence Organization secretly sealed off a cease-fire agreement with the Burmese military regime in 1993 without acknowledging either NDF or DAB, he came to realize, in a very hard way, how weak those alliances were.

Along with the Karen armed resistance, Saw Bo Mya and his revolutionary comrades brought Marnerplaw, the long time headquarters of the Karen National Liberation Army, onto the regional political map. But the Karen headquarters, which also housed more than a dozen of other Burmese opposition offices, was overrun by the Burmese troops in 1995. It was widely alleged that the capture of Marnerplaw was made possible, or at least easier, by the Karen splinter group known as Democratic Karen Buddhist Army. Most Karens credited Saw Bo Mya for the rise and some also blame him for the fall of Marnerplaw. To the latter, he disagreed and rebutted that, “should my orders were obeyed early enough, the split [of DKBA from KNU] could have been prevented.”

Karen people never cease admiring Saw Bo Mya for his devotion to their cause; there is no doubt, nonetheless, that they at times wished they had a politically shrewder leader. During his glory days in the 1980’s as the President of KNU, he was surrounded by some loyal but inept advisors, who never uttered a word to disagree with him, but handsomely benefited from the huge sale of timber and other mineral resources within KNU-controlled territory at that time.

Saw Bo Mya, a legendary Karen military commander, who learned to master guerrilla warfare in his fight for his people against the regime in Rangoon, was not adequately equipped to manage the economy he controlled. It was one thing to fight the war of resistance, another to be engaged in national and regional politics, build schools and deliver healthcare.

His final legacy will, arguably, be shaped by the trip he made to Rangoon to meet quite amicably with the now ousted Burmese military intelligence chief and Prime Minister, General Khin Nyunt. With his decision to meet with the Burmese regime for talks, Bo Mya became the first and only ethnic resistance leader in Burm’s history to fly into Rangoon from a foreign capital, Bangkok. As the vice chairman of KNU, he transformed his image from a recalcitrant revolutionary to a hopeful revisionist, who holds both the guts to fight and the courage to change the course of his action. During his meeting with Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, he negotiated a “gentleman’s agreement” and demanded the rights of Karen people. His detractors, however, charged that he was simply duped by Khin Nyunt, and thereby the regime, to be assuaged in return by the opportunity to celebrate his 77th birthday at Kandawgyi Palace Hotel in Rangoon. He seemed simply caught between the expectations of his supporters, who cannot conceivably envisage any credible political deal with the historically crooked regimes in Rangoon, and the reality of Burmese military superiority, which almost precluded any serious military challenge by the KNLA, or for that matter, any other ethnic resistance forces.

At the 13th KNU Congress held in December 2004, Gen. Saw Bo Mya was honorably permitted to retire from the vice chairmanship. The position was immediately taken over by Gen. Tarmalarbaw, who also headed the KNU peace delegation twice in Maulmein, the capital of Mon State, in 1996. Although less active in day-to-day political activities, Gen. Saw Bo Mya remained chief of KNU’s Defense Department.Often characterized by his blunt talks and bold acts, Gen. Saw Bo Mya never wavers to speak against what he believes to be wrong. He succinctly defines what the Karen revolution must mean: “opposing the wrong and constructing the right things.” Saw Bo Mya has served Karen people well in terms of the former, but the latter is left for the new generation participants in the Karen resistance movement. It is entirely up to the younger generation Karens to choose whether they want to be a generation of the future or mere followers of the past. There is little doubt that Saw Bo Mya will prefer the former.

General Saw Bo Mya, 79, passed away at his home in the Thai-Burma border on December 24, 2006 at 2:00am local time. He is survived by his wife, Naw Lar Poe, and seven children.

Karen New Year

2006-12-28T04:25:00.000-08:00

The Karens' New Year Day: Its Meaning and Implication

By – Saw Kapi

Most Karens realize that the official recognition of Karens' New Year day did not come about easily. Far-sighted Karen leaders started out their relentless efforts with an attempt to gain recognition for a Karen national day. In the early 1920’s a group of visionary leaders deliberated upon the issue on several occasions and finally came the agreement that Saw Myat Thein (Karen Parliamentarian from Hinthada) and Dr. Johnson Durmay Poe Min (Karen Parliamentarian from Toungoo) should, together, take the lead in working with their other colleagues to introduce a Karen New Year Recognition Bill to the then British Burma's Legislative Council.

First, the efforts to get Karen New Year Day officially recognized by the Legislative Council at that time reflects both high political awareness of and commendable cooperation among our leaders.

Second, the recognition of Karen New Year Day implies, at least indirectly, that the Karen people of Burma are one of the earliest settlers to the land. In their deliberation on determining Karen Era, they decided to start counting the chronology from the time Karen people competed their second phase of migration to the land now known as Burma, BC 739.

Third, the Karen New Year Day calls for unity among different tribes of Karen people, because it is recognized and celebrated by all Karens (Sqaw, East Pwo and West Pwo) regardless of their creeds and linguistic affiliation. Of the many holidays that the Karen people celebrate annually, only the New Year celebration brings together Karens of all different backgrounds.

May the New Year bring our people the kind of unity that our forefathers had sought for in their fight for the recognition of Karen New Year Day.

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

The Karen People of Burma

2006-12-21T19:24:00.000-08:00

The Karen people of Burma: An "imagined community"?

By – Saw Kapi

Contrary to what most students of Burmese politics think, the Karen people of Burma do not share the same faith – a significant percent of Karen people have become Christians (35%, according to the latest estimate by the Karen Baptist Convention), while more than 50% of them have adopted the Buddhist religion, and some remain animists still. It appears that the Karens are almost equally split in terms of creeds. The advent of Christian religion in Burma, however, is a recent phenomenon. It can be reasonably assumed that the Karens have been sharing a common tradition of faith, that is, their belief in nature and animism, which, in certain aspects, may be closely related to some practices of Buddhism, until the later part of 19th century.

Secondly, the Karens do not use the same written or verbal language. As far as can be ascertained, there are at least three major Karen languages: East Pwo, West Pwo and Sqaw. Even though legends and oral history tell us that we have our own original common language known as Li-hsaw-wehh, there is no scientific research finding that establishes proofs of its actual existance. Assuming, nonetheless, that the Karen people have had a common written language before, there is no indication still of how and when it was lost. It is historically commendable, however, that the Karens had been surviving without communicating with each other in writing for several centuries. Fortunately in the late 1830, using Burmese alphabets, Dr. Jonathan Wade, an American Baptist missionary, helped invent modern written Sqaw Karen language. Subsequently, Dr. Mason launched the first ever Karen language newspaper, Hsar-Du-Ghaw, in 1841. Based in Tavoy town of present day Tanassarim Division, the publication lasted almost 100 years until the Fascist Japanese invaded Burma. The West Pwo Karen language was also created by Dr. Wade but revised in 1840 again by Dr. Brighton, another American Baptist missionary. So, today’s written Karen languages, except Eastern Pwo Karen, are the creations of non-Karen Christian missionaries.

Thirdly, to what extent the Karens do share the same culture heritage is a question to be answered still. For example, East Pwo Karen and West Pwo Karen develop and cherish Done Dance, the most recognized symbol of Karen cultural expression, but the great majority of Sqaw Karen people do not have a good idea about this particular aspect of Karen culture. Many Sqaw Karen know that Done Dance is a cultural heritage of Karen people, and it ends there. For instance, in 1997 a group of Karen students (approximately 70, most of them being Sqaw Karen) were asked to write an essay about either Done Dance or Klo, Karen Drum. Only two of them chose to write on the former, and both of them showed that they know little about the subject except the fact that they enjoy watching it so much.

Hence, there seem to be some inherent obstacles to building much needed collectivism among Karens of all tribes based on a sense of shared identities. Sensitivity to and conscientious tolerance of cultural, language and religious differences amongst these "imagined communities"[i] of Karen people are quintessential if, at the very least, a functional unity is to be achieved.

That said, there is one historical commonality among the Karens of all religious and cultural backgrounds, that is, their common history of oppression. Throughout history, Karens - East Pwo, West Pwo and Sqaw alike - have consistently endured oppression of all forms, by successive Chinese kings prior to their migration to Burma, and presently by Burmese rulers and military governments interrupted only briefly by the British colonization of Burma in the early 20th century. Consequently, there seems to be a tendency among the Karen people that they draw their strength for the resistance to stronger and arrogant rulers from their shared historical experience. The danger, though, in doing so is that many of us ended up adopting victim’s mentality and searching for sympathy and support from outside, loosing track of the need to develop our own capacities – intellectual, technical or otherwise.

Ardeth Maung, a Karen political scientist currently teaching at the University of Massachusetts, observes that, “Karens may not share similar cultures, but our shared commonalities may be based on awareness about blood ties (that we may all have descended from the same language group, as identified by American missionaries or British colonizers), powerful myths about the origins of our ‘homeland,’ and shared experiences about the oppression of the Burmese military regimes. These, I believe, are the main common features that unite the Karen people. Identities are multiple, and they can change from time to time depending on the contexts.” It is evident enough that, languages, cultures and identities cannot be viewed as either exclusive or static elements of a society. They intermingle with others and are subject to change over time. Those striving to liberate the Karen people should not fail to note that a national pride beyond social and historical realities is merely an arrogance that appeals to jingoism. The only viable hope for the Karen people of Burma, hence, is to attain unity amidst diversity!

[i] Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso, 1991.

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

Beyond Condemnation

2006-11-24T05:15:00.000-08:00

Beyond the Politics of Condemnation:
Rethinking Burma's Political Impasse

By – Saw Kapi

The Burmese military regime, often to its own discredits, is bent on crushing the National League for Democracy (NLD) by all means. It regularly bashes the 1990-election winning party and its iconic leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, while launching atrocious military operations against the Karen National Union (KNU) and other ethnic resistance groups. In conducting its sweeping military operations, the regime's soldiers invariably commit numerous forms of human rights abuses; raping women, burning villages, and the arbitrary killing of innocent civilians.

Being an ethnic Karen of Burma, whenever there is a large scale human rights violation against innocent people, one feels an acute sense of humiliation, not just because the people we share our ethnic affinity with are invariably under attack but because the various opposition groups – Burmese and multiple ethnics alike – both at the border and the world over, in reality, cannot respond beyond condemnatory rhetoric. Looking to the international community, examining what the press has said, what statements have been issued and what position the various political organizations have adopted, one can easily see that substance is absent – there is little more than verbal condemnation of the military regime. It is simply up to us – especially those in the movement, political activists and academics alike – to analyze how the Burmese opposition has reached such a pitiful level of powerlessness that peace loving people of Burma should endure such humiliation.

Hitherto, there seems to be no coherent idea as to how we might be able to prevent the innocent Burmese people from once more becoming the victims of the military regime. There has been a general diatribe against the military regime, but what has been truly astonishing is that amid the plethora of commentary, no single political organization showed the slightest inclination to examine the reality of the people on the ground. Meanwhile, an estimated fifty million inhabitants of Burma – in a land where there exists no reliable public opinion polls, no free press and no viable opposition group – are without a voice, caught between the stubborn military regime, on the one hand, and ineffective opposition groups on the other.

While there have been demands for sanctioning and isolating of the regime, there has been no convincing explanation as to how this might prevent the regime's next military operation against ethnic people. Or how that might trigger the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. Similarly, there were calls for a boycott of economic investment in Burma, though those making such calls appeared impervious to the fact that such a move would simply serve to underline our tendency to depend more on the outside world than ourselves.

At the root of the problem lies a simple fact – the Burmese opposition movement is not taken very seriously because we put all our energy into issuing condemnatory rhetoric rather than engaging in critical yet constructive actions. Taking such a step would seem counterintuitive to the fact, for instance, that thousand of Karen families have to flee across the border after their lives were destroyed by the Burmese military's scorch-earth counter-insurgency operations, while student activists inside the country are being detained. But if we really want to move beyond the past and the current impasse, it is necessary that after the obligatory rounds of condemnation we should look into more practical matters – for example, what role the opposition movement can play in (re)constructing the country's fast-deteriorating healthcare and education systems.

It is now time for both the regime and the opposition to move past the politics of mutual condemnation and sincerely embrace the spirit of cohabitation, recognizing that each side has a role to play and positively contribute to the future of the country. Though it may be perceived as being too difficult in some quarters, this would involve asking the NLD to heal its wounds with the military regime and to come to terms with the fact that its incapability to act effectively holds millions of its supporters political hostages. Yet such an admission of ineffectiveness is necessary if the torn country and her people are ever to be healed. As for the KNU, the only credible force among the remaining armed resistance organizations, it cannot afford to stand still and be attacked by the regime's troops – or wait to be contacted by the regime's liaison. It needs to seriously delineate and propose a plausible political passage that includes a call for the cessation of all military activities by both sides. On the part of the regime in power, and most importantly to commence a national reconciliation process in the most serious sense, it will need to allow the convening of a more genuine national convention, in which the opposition, including the NLD and the armed resistance groups, are allowed to participate, freely and fairly.

Regrettably, nothing in this vein appeared in the press or in the statements issued by politicians or political organizations, at home or abroad. The easy path was taken – the regime continues to bash and arrest the opposition, to which the opposition's standard response is total condemnation. At times, fine-sounding slogans and the regularly released soul soothing statements from the international community may well express sympathy for us, but they, patently, remain insufficient to resolve an ongoing dilemma facing the people of Burma. Surely the time has come when we show the world that in addition to exercising our voice, we can take positive action in resolving our problems. That is the only way to display that we are not just a nation seething with resentment but one capable of taking the necessary steps to help ourselves.

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

Paradigm Shift

2006-10-23T09:49:00.000-07:00

The Pitfalls of Burma's Opposition Politics and the Need for a Paradigm Shift

By Saw Kapi

Burma's opposition movement, a coalition of otherwise disparate groups – some have been fighting for a broader national autonomy for more than half a century but some started with a revolt in 1988 against bloody military coup – was known from the very beginning for not having strategic, collective vision for the future of the country. Over the past decade, the movement has become more and more misdirected in its strategy and approach to the issues facing the very people it claims to liberate. It found itself between two constituencies – on the one hand, the people of Burma and secondly the so-called international community composed of a handful of non-governmental organizations and governments in the west. As a result, it became a "captured" movement – responding more to the demands and desires of the international community and less to the daily concerns of the local people. If the opposition movement is to produce any positive result for the people of Burma, it has become clear now that it is desperately in need of shifting its current paradigm – from the negativities of condemnation and isolation of the country to the more constructive and inclusive approach that honestly addresses the problems facing the ordinary people of Burma.

The opposition voice over the years has been united by one aim: the removal of current military regime and the introduction of a new dispensation led by a new government, whatever it is. It is change for change’s sake. Evidently however, the opposition movement has not been very visible beyond the border areas, that is, the people inside the country do not feel its existence, let alone influence. When the military regime recently rearrested five student leaders, those in the opposition stood in awe, like a rabbit glaring at the headlights, hoping that the solution would come from outside. In the scheme of things, the movement has become desperate and has no significant role to play beyond promoting a signature campaign being launched inside by some courageous student leaders.

The biggest problem perhaps is that the movement seems to have lost its focus on the primary reasons for its emergence in 1988 and the key points of challenge against the military regime that really matter to the people. This is connected to the above point in relation to being "captured" by the international community. Instead of focusing on the wider primary reasons for people’s disgruntlement against the military regime, the movement became so obsessed with the matter of "human rights." This is by no means to discount that there have been human rights abuses in the country. However, what causes concern is the "reductionist" approach to the Burmese problem whereby everything is reduced to the human rights argument and must fit the human rights paradigm. Therefore every problem, every other issue which many of the groups that make up the movement against the government became quite simply a "human rights" issue. The key challenges against the government, such as political and economic mismanagement – which by the way was the primary problem long before the current human rights problems – have become marginalized topics that are discussed on a "by the way" basis. Emphasis is placed more on the removal of the regime than the reconstruction of the country.

It seems obvious why the movement has become so obsessed with human rights that it began to base its campaign against the regime on the basis of violation of human rights. It could not ably articulate the many issues represented by the many voices in the movement choir. Perhaps, some in the leadership listen to the tune and realize that there is too much discord, and therefore it is better to stick to one issue as the rallying point against the military regime: Human Rights – for that is universal and affects everyone. It universalizes the problem and covers all issues under a single umbrella.

This over-emphasis on human rights results in the loss of opportunities to challenge the military regime on key areas that directly affect people on the ground – education, health, infrastructure development, employment, economic progress, etc. Even the military regime knows this – while the regime is boasting about its infrastructure project in the rural parts of the country, what do we as a movement do to address the weaknesses of the current military regime regarding the education policies and practices? For instance, the restoration of human rights will not necessarily change the way public exams and healthcare system are run in Burma – the opposition movement needs to articulate these issues that find resonance among the ordinary people of Burma. Instead, all we hear is the military regimes attacks villages, arrest student leaders and violates human rights and nothing more.

There is no doubt that human rights matter to everyone, the knowledgeable and the ignorant alike. An opposition movement predicated upon human rights indeed sounds very right and sweet to the international community, and the introduction of democracy and promotion of human rights and removal of tyrannies is well in line with the current US foreign policy. But as a political strategy, it is necessary to put at the forefront, issues that are uppermost in the psyche of the people. It is good for the international community to understand our sufferings but it is also necessary to base the movement on issues that resonate in the national and local context – education, economic development and steady political progress.

Unfortunately, some of us have been relentlessly busy collecting names of "enemies," not friends, of the movement. The very movement that has aimed to establish a democratic Burma, in the end, has become so undemocratic that anyone speaking constructively of the military regime is considered enemy of the movement. Shifting from this paradigm, we will probably be better off collecting names of those who understand and support what we as a movement strive to achieve. After all must we not reason that if this military regime has been a big part of Burma's political problems, it could be a big part of solution as well?

Unless we refocus our energy and strategy on the practical need of the people, with whom the real power dwells, but continue to look to the international community – which frankly has more interests elsewhere and will continue to shout against the regime, but ultimately do nothing, the struggle that began almost half a century ago will ineptly continue. Constant condemnation of the military regime without credible counter proposal from us on issues directly related to the wellbeing of the people will not produce anything good either. Let us be real and pragmatic – a military regime with a firm grip onto power will not easily yield to the condemnation by, or heed the demands from, a militarily and politically much weaker opposition.

Saw Kapi is a former Karen refugee from Burma. He fled Toungoo, his hometown in Burma, in 1988 after the military coup, and came with his family to one of the refugee camps in Thailand, near the Burma-Thai border. Saw Kapi currently resides in the United States and works as an Assistant Director of Undergraduate Admissions at the University of Maryland College Park.

2006-09-03T06:06:00.000-07:00

An ice-breaker before a serious discussion.

KYC Education Discussion

2006-09-03T06:04:00.000-07:00

An educational briefing before taking a tour of Mt. Vernon, the Home of George Washington.

KYC Education Discussion

2006-09-03T06:02:00.000-07:00

Saw Too Too, St. Paul, MN, joined the discussion.

KYC Education Discussion

2006-08-27T18:51:00.000-07:00

Naw Teemu, a medical student at Jefferson Medical School, Phili, PA, discussed and shared her experience.

2006-08-17T18:26:00.000-07:00

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

KYC 2006 Memory

2006-08-17T18:18:00.000-07:00

Saw Mular Cribb (of Utica College) led discussion.

Reflection - One

2006-08-16T18:03:00.000-07:00

The Karen Youth camp was a great program which was held from August 4-8 2006 in Washington, DC.

This program brings our Karen youth together for educational discussion and sharing experiences, which our senior brothers and sisters have gone through. That was really helpful for the younger brothers and sisters.

I suggested that the program should be organized annually for Karen students to have alternative learning exposure.

During the program I was pretty much interested in the Voice America Radio Station. I hope that this activity will motivate Karen youth to put our effort more in education for our long term national development.

I hope we all will actively participate in this type of program organizing.

By Saw Naw Naw (Hay Htoo)
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Date: August 13, 2006

Karen Youth Camp 2006 Memory 5

2006-08-11T16:18:00.000-07:00

Leaving the Capitol building.

Karen You Camp 2006 Memory 4

2006-08-11T16:16:00.000-07:00

During Capitol tour.

Karen Youth Camp 2006 Memory 3

2006-08-11T16:13:00.000-07:00

With Virginia Wing, administrative staff from the Office of Representative Joe Pitts, who provided guided tour of the Capitol Hill.

Karen Youth Camp 2006 Memory 2

2006-08-11T16:09:00.000-07:00

A group of Karen students from Utica, NY, also actively participated in discussions.

Karen You Camp 2006 Memory 1

2006-08-11T16:06:00.000-07:00

Naw Mary Than, Naw Novia and Naw Eh Ghay listen attentively during "dialogues on education and development."

Picture of the Day - 6

2006-08-10T18:24:00.000-07:00

An exclusive audio tour of the Voice of America.

Picture of the Day - 5

2006-08-10T18:21:00.000-07:00

In front of McKeldon Library, University of Maryland, College Park.

Picture of the Day - 4

2006-08-10T18:16:00.000-07:00

In front of the Capitol Building, Washington, DC.

Picture of the Day - 3

2006-08-10T18:12:00.000-07:00

At Mt. Vernon, Home of George Washington, the first president of United States of America.

Picture of the Day - 2

2006-08-10T18:09:00.000-07:00

Karen youth on the Capitol Hill

Picture of the Day

2006-08-09T17:47:00.000-07:00

Karen Youth Camp 2006: The three panelists sharing their perspectives on education.

The role of media

2006-07-28T04:45:00.000-07:00

I think a role of media organization depends primarily on its own founding mission. I don't believe that every Burmese media group outside of Burma should become mouthpieces of opposition movement. An unbiased, free and balanced media is what we need. Even if the aim of a media organization coincides with the end of the Burmese opposition movement, still the media has the responsibility to report the truth, i.e., if necessary, it can and should be critical to the opposition movement as well. Once it fails to be a free and balanced one, a media organization merely becomes a propaganda tool for the opposition, which can be at times as corrupt as the military regime.

Saw Kapi

What is National Interest?

2006-07-21T19:53:00.000-07:00

"It is truism to say that the power of the state used to advance and maintain the national interest, both in the international sphere and in the domestic. However, the pursuit of the national interest depends on the perception and interpretation of the national interest. In most cases, this is done form a limited viewpoint, from the viewpoint of those in power. Access to power, thus, determines the use of power, the end to which power is directed. Since access to power is essentially elitists, the use of power is also elitist in character." From "Religion, Politics and State" by Tun Aung Chain

The Value of Scholarship

2006-07-19T14:33:00.000-07:00

The Power of Knowledge

The value of a scholarly inquiry derives essentially from its responses to some basic human needs, which are often subjective, while the instruments used to pursue the scholarly inquiry must be objective, that is, accuracy must prevail in what it gathers and reports. The state of Burma's politics and economy today not only calls on the scholars and intellectuals alike to focus on critical human needs on the ground but requires them to challenge the status quo that produces nothing but human sufferings and miseries on a daily basis.

If the recent gathering of university professors, scholars and experts at the largely publicized International Burma Studies Conference (“Burma Conference in Singapore a Success,” The Irrawaddy Online, July 18, 2000) resulted in the establishment of a scholarship that encourages the use of knowledge corresponding to the social and political revolution in the Burmese society, we must not fail to acknowledge that the knowledge they possess in their hands is a form of power to be reckoned with. Otherwise, it would just be another opportunity for some to publish what Howard Zinn called "inconsequential" studies. In the meantime, the susceptible public in the country continue to endure their daily miseries and hope at least that, at this time, they do not perish while articles and papers about them are being published.

Saw Kapi

Picture of the Day - 2

2006-06-25T08:39:00.001-07:00

Kawthoolei: A simply unique land

Amongst Ubiquitous Need

2006-06-15T07:40:00.001-07:00

Today, Karens are faced with numerous pressing national issues. Among them is the need to nurture a new breed of leadership that can critically question its surroundings and wisely develop it for the betterment of the whole community. It is imperative that educators and intellectuals of all backgrounds, few as they may be among the Karens, play their own role in this process. Our sense of sharing and our sensitivity to injustice around us are as important as our educational attainment and our professionalism. Rendering service to and for the betterment of our own people must become a unique trait of our new leaders. To this end, the new generations Karen leadership must, at least, learn to see the situation around them "not as they simply are, but as they come to be." They will then have to shape their environment the way they see just and lead their people on to the path of development.

If we are truly aspired to prosper as a people, having a strong knowledge-based human resource is quintessential. Circumstances may not always be in our favor to build our own institutions and infrastructures; nonetheless, through farsighted programs and well-managed projects, we can help promote educational opportunities for our young generation. It is through modern education that we must seek to build a strong human resource foundation, which must essentially serve as a vehicle to carry our people forward.

From "Education, Human Resources and Leadership Development: A Karen Context" by Saw Kapi

Picture of the Day

2006-06-15T07:40:00.000-07:00

Picture of the day: Karen IDP's on the run

The Klo & the Nine Stars

2006-05-29T03:59:00.000-07:00

The KSNG: The Klo and the Nine Stars

Saw Kapi

Almost ten years ago, with the birth of KSNG – Karen Students' Network Group - a new chapter of Karen political activism was born, afresh, bright and hopeful. No one knew what it means because it was not a union, nor was it an organization. "What does 'network group' mean?" questioned a well-meaning schoolteacher. Everyone wanted to know what are the aims, the goals and the meaning of KSNG, to be more specific; people were interested in why the KSNG was formed in the fist place.

Never before in the history of Karen resistance movement and certainly not until 1996 that the Karen students were able to organize in the scale of a united movement as a well-informed and active segment of Karen society, either in the political realm or in the discourse of national progress. Before then, all we were familiar with, in addition to the mother organization KNU, was the KYO – Karen Youth Organization, and to a lesser extent, the KWO – Karen Women Organization. But a group of young, energetic and far-sighted Karen students (for lack of a better term, let's continue to use "student") started to put together a new publication called the Students' Friend Magazine. They are, let me mention their names here for the record, Saw Doh Moh (now in Thailand), Saw Eh Wah (now Texas, USA) and Saw Law Plah (currently in Thailand). It was this Students' Friend Magazine that provided us a media platform to generate discussion about the critical need to have a free, progressive Karen student movement.

So, the Karen Student Network Group (KSNG) was formed in December 1996 after a meeting at Maela Mission High School in Maela Refugee Camp. The meeting was well attended by many Karen student activists from inside as well as outside of the refugee camps. The purpose was not only to generate social, political and cultural awareness among the Karen students but also to serve, most importantly, as a preparatory stage on which necessary political and organizational skills and expertise can be crafted so that a homegrown national leadership of the future Karen generation may be developed.

Only a few months after its formation, the KSNG made its first political debut by releasing a press statement condemning the attacks by the Burmese military-backed armed elements on Huaykaloke Refugee Camp. The KSNG mobilized students in the camp to express their opinions and concerns over the situation to the world. Signs and slogans with the signature – Klo & the nine stars – were posted through out the camp. The Nation newspaper of Thailand later picked up one of the KSNG posters and quoted "Klo & the nine stars" in its story about the plight of Karen refugees.

There is no doubt that the KSNG has overcome many organizational hurdles and circumstantial obstacles over the past ten years. The political pressure that it had to face in the early years was enormous, partly because our society – and perhaps our leadership back then – was not familiar with the concept of political pluralism. But, looking back ten years the many accomplishments of KSNG over a period of one decade are extraordinarily impressive. On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the formation of KSNG, there are hopes and wishes that the KSNG as an organization continues to play its role as a free, thoughtful and progressive entity; that it continues to serve as a multi-purpose political platform for the entire Karen student community. May the Klo continue to pass on its analytical voice freely; may the Nine Stars continue to shine progressively.

(The author would like to clarify that he only participated and helped in the formation of KSNG, but he was never a full-fledge member of the organization. Naw May Oo did not participate in the first meeting that decided to form KSNG in 1996 but she later joined the group and, together with many of us, actively advocated for the broader role of KSNG in Karen politics. Naw Sharlu was one of those who took part in the first meeting to establish KSNG.)

Thank you for visiting "Karen for Karen" Blog.

Revolution Reviewed

2006-02-24T17:42:00.000-08:00

REVOLUTION REVIEWED:
The Karens’ Struggle for Right to Self-determination and Hope for the Future

By - Saw Kapi

The Karen’s aspiration for a coherent national identity and their endeavor for national advancement can be traced back to the establishment of the Karen National Association (KNA) in 1881, two years prior to the founding of the India’s Congress Party. The creation of the KNA was politically significant, because one of the association's main objectives was to ensure Karens’ representation in the then colonial government of Burma. Nevertheless, the KNA, whose leaders where mostly educated Christians, have failed to work with and garner enough support from the majority Karen Buddhists, who perhaps felt like second-class folks at the time. Especially under a situation where the American missionaries appeared to encourage and favor the Karen Christians, the majority Karen Buddhists were reluctant to go along with the KNA leadership. The KNA, even though unsuccessful in collectively represent the political aspiration of the majority of the Karen people, was able to sow the seeds of modern Karen nationalism.

Dr. San C. Poe, a pioneer of the ideology for “Karen Nation” based his discussion on the point that “[s]elf-respect in a nation begets respect from other nations and races.” He argued that only when the Karens achieve their ambition (to establish a country of their own as a nation), “the Karens will then be in a position to show sincere respect to other races, especially to the Burmese, with whom they have been at variance, and in turn the Burmese will find them worthy of respect and esteem.” Whether Dr. Poe’s ideology was representative of that of Karens’ is secondary to the Karen people nowadays. But, it is undeniable that the Karens’ struggle for their right to self-determination has always, since then, been heavily influenced by Dr. Poe’s ideology. To this date, the underlining essence in this ideology has been the fact that the Karens do not feel respected by their Burmese counterparts. This feeling commonly shared among the Karens was enforced by their own experience at the hands of the Burmese since pre-independence.

That said, most students of Karen politics, Karen and non-Karen alike, would agree that the contemporary chapter of Karen movement for national identity and right to self-determination began with the historic formation of the Karen National Union (KNU) on February 5, 1947 by the joining of four existing Karen organizations of that time, namely the Karen National Association (KNA), the Buddhist Karen National Association (BKNA), the Karen Central Organization (KCO) and the Karen Youth Organization (KYO). Forging unity to assert a coherent national identity and the right to self-determination has never been easy for the Karens. Since its inception, The KNU has faced the problem of forging unity within itself. Saw San Po Thin, the first chairman of KNU, left the organization for ideological disagreement and later took up a ministerial post for the Karen State in Prime Minister U Nu's cabinet, a post vacated by Saw Ba U Gyi. On April 10, 1947, the central executive committee was reorganized with Saw Ba U Gyi as A president, Mahn Saw Bu as a vice president, and Thra Thar Hto as a general secretary.

Despite General Aung San's efforts to build the Union of Burma within which non-Burman ethnic nationalities' right to autonomy is recognized, the leaders of Anti Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) did not continue the same pursuit after the General’s assassination in July 1947. Organized by the KNU, on February 11, 1948, tens of thousands of Karen people took to the streets throughout the whole country and demonstrated peacefully to demand for an autonomous Karen state. It took place one day before the 1st anniversary of a historic Panglong Agreement, which addressed most concerns of ethnic peoples but stopped short of giving them the right to secession. The agreement was signed between Aung San and non-Burman ethnic leaders such as Shan, Kachin and Chin. The Karens did not officially attend the Panglong Conference and were not part of the signatories to the agreement signed subsequently. The KNU went ahead with its move to declare that it would not support nor participate in the new constituent assembly.[1] The peaceful demand made by the KNU to set up a Karen State, however, failed when the AFPFL government, led by U Nu, refused to consider the Karen proposal.[2] Instead, they mounted military attacks on the Karens in their three enclaves in Insein, on January 31, 1949. The Karen National Defense Organization (KNDO), the armed branch of the KNU, defended the attacks. This marked the beginning of the Karen revolution, which has been ongoing until this moment.

The KNU, which had led the Karen struggle for more than five decades, was severely weakened by the loss of its Manerplaw headquarters in 1995, and subsequently its stronghold Kawmoorah, in early 1997. Since then, the KNU has kept its headquarters mobile and engaged in hit-and-run guerrilla warfare. Organizational changes and shifts in political strategy were thought to be imminent. Yet, apart from the reevaluation of military strategy, the 11th Congress of the KNU that was held in July 1995 did not come up with any significant political plans. Military activities, on the other hand, were kept only at defensive level in an effort to make way for peace talks with the ruling regime.

Since the early 1990s, the Burmese military regime has increased its military expenditure and launched several military offensives against the KNU-controlled territories. By the time the KNU was severely weakened at the end of 1994, a proposal to begin cease-fire talks was secretly and strategically initiated by the SLORC through the Office of Strategic Studies (OSS), headed by Col. Kyaw Thein. In response to this, on March 24, 1995, General Bo Mya, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), released a statement ordering a temporary cease-fire throughout KNU-controlled territory. Following this order, the KNU sent its delegations on different occasions "to pave ways for negotiation with the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC)."[3] In December 1995, the first KNU delegation led by P'doh Klesay was sent to Moulmein, the capital of Mon State, to meet with the Commander of Southern Command and officially set up the agenda for cease-fire talks and the composition of the negotiating teams. A number of talks were held ever since without reaching any sort of agreement. At first, the KNU seemed quite enthusiastic about settling the problem with the regime, although the leaders involved in the talks repeatedly admitted that they were not very hopeful about any positive outcome. KNU has always stressed that the Karen issue is only a portion of the whole problem plaguing Burma. Long-term solutions to the conflict could only be addressed on the basis of political transformation in Burma. It put forward a six-point proposal to the SLORC, which included a timetable to begin political negotiation six months after the cease-fire period. A request for the presence of international mediators was dropped by the KNU as a concession to further accommodate the ongoing talks with the SLORC. The SLORC, on the other hand, pressed the KNU to agree "to abandon armed resistance” and return to the 'legal fold,' as a prerequisite to participation in the currently stalled national convention. The KNU proposal for a timeline "to begin political dialogue six months after the cease-fire agreement” was vehemently rejected by the SLORC delegations.[4]

The KNU leadership realized, though it might not admit openly, that the Burmese military regime had already gotten the upper hand and would not easily accept any demands -- political or military – made by the KNU. Although the talks seemed to produce no political development, the KNU at least wanted to maintain dialogue between the two sides. The Karen strategy was to continue talks and keep military activities minimal. Whereas the military regime may have believed that the Karens were no longer strong militarily, and therefore continuation of talks would make no sense if the Karens did not accept their terms. Both sides blamed each other and the talks broke down after the 4th round in late 1996. It is obvious that the conflict between the ruling military regime and the KNU will remain unless a mutually accepted political solution is found. Following the failed negotiation, the military government launched massive military offensives against the Karen, especially villages that are in the KNU controlled areas.

In January 2004, Gen. Bo Mya, the most notable symbol of the Karen resistance, made a surprise but calculated political move by accepting an invitation from the then Prime Minister Khin Nyunt to meet with him in Rangoon. Gen. Bo Mya was the first ethnic resistance leader ever to fly into Rangoon from a foreign capital. Many in Burma’s opposition circle were astonished by the move, and the trip was seen as a solo decision made by Gen. Bo Mya, rather than that of the KNU. However controversial the trip may have been, there is no doubt that the KNU was able to advance its political agendas by sending its high level delegation to Rangoon. First of all, it was made clear to all Burma’s observers that the KNU, despite its affiliation with exile democratic forces, can and will make political decisions on its own if and when necessary. Secondly, the resumption of talks between the SPDC and KNU shows that KNU is committed to solving the country’s political problems by political means no matter how slim the chances are. Differing in its treatments toward different ethnic groups, the SPDC proved that KNU remains the most credible political force to be reckoned. Should ethnic issues are to be kept at a manageable level, the SPDC understands that it needs to allow a level of political accommodation with the KNU, which is arguably inseparable from the Karen people.

Nevertheless many Burmese expatriates opine that the SPDC simply toyed with the KNU, frequently using their newly acquired ally, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) to show the world that the country is still insecure, branding the Karens as 'separatists', and thus necessitating the regime to maintain a large army and thereby prolong its rule. They could have easily wiped out what is left of the KNU troops. The fact remains, however, that SPDC could win the battle but would never win the war, since the distrust held by the Karens would continue, with every opportunity of using armed resistance. There would always be trouble for any Burman ruler who refuses to take into consideration the political and social desires of the people.

In the meantime, the KNU continues to keep its military activities at defensive level. It has hosted a number of meetings and seminars within its limited territory along the Thai-Burmese border. With some financial help from international non-governmental organizations, a series of seminars to reconsolidate Karen unity were organized by the KNU in 1998, 2000 and 2002. In each seminar, more than a hundred Karen leaders from different organizations attended and openly discussed the current political situation and national unity issue. After more than fifty years of political and military engagements, the KNU finds itself again struggling for much needed national unity and the active participation of Karen people of different backgrounds in its unfinished struggle. With its new civilian chairman Saw Ba Thin Sein, who succeeded General Bo Mya in the 12th Congress, the KNU has been able to raise its political voice to some extent. But the majority of the leaders are in their seventies, with some of them are in unstable health. Only a few of them are attuned to the current international and regional political situations. In the most recent 13th Congress of KNU, General Saw Bo Mya, 76, was replaced by General Tamalarbaw, 84, while Saw Ba Thin Sein and Mahn Sha Laphan retrain their posts as the Chairman and General Secretary of the group respectively. No policy changes were made at the latest congress, nor were new political strategies announced. Half a century later, the same leadership continues to lead the Karen resistance movement with primarily the same strategy. In essence, the objectives of the struggle remain unchanged. However, the geopolitical and economic contexts, within which the Karens were waging their resistance, have changed dramatically. It is unfortunate that the new generation leadership within the KNU has been unprepared to take up the historical tasks ahead.

The most challenging task ahead for the Karens is to generate a new breed of political leadership that is capable of looking beyond the same voices that recycle the old frameworks. The new and younger political leadership must be able to grasp the complex dynamics of ethnicity, and yet attuned to the regional political situation of this increasingly interconnected world. Though the Karen struggle is ethnic-base in nature, it must essentially become national in scope. Without the understanding and support from the majority Burman populace, it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for the Karens to achieve their goal for right to self-determination within a federal union of Burma. What stood out most strikingly about the late Saw Ba U Gyi, who laid the cornerstone principles of the Karen movement, as he became the second president of KNU, is his conviction of the importance of creating a condition in which the Karens and Burmans can coexist peacefully. Very early on, he recognized the paramount importance that both the Karens and Burmans must recognize and respect each other, as he said: "If the Burmans do not want the Karens to separate themselves from the Union, behave so that the Karen will not want to separate themselves; and if the Karens want their own state, they must act so as to persuade the Burmans to want to give them their state."[5] After more than half a century, there is no doubt about Karens’ determination to fight militarily. On this long and painful path that the Karen people were and still are compelled to tread, it takes more than a strong will to reach our goal. As part of our struggle, we will need to come up with a strategy that goes beyond regular press releases that simply expose atrocities committed by the Burmese military regime against the Karens.

If the Karen struggle is to gain national and international support, intellectuals, few though they may have been among the Karens, will have to look beyond their narrowly specialized disciplines, and play their own role within the struggle. For the past decades, many prominent Karen intellectuals, both inside and outside the country, have been silent or disassociated themselves from the Karen movement. Intellectual life during the Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) and SPDC eras has been difficult enough, but by being silent or turning a blind eyes to the political aspiration and the suffering of the majority Karen people, many Karen intellectuals have been regarded less than reverential by those in the struggle. The gap between urban Karen intellectuals and rural villagers has thus been widened over time. This has been the case partly because the Burmese military government often treats the educated urban elites and the rural Karens differently. Regardless of the causes of this gap, it cannot continue for long if the struggle is to regain its critical impetus. Many western-trained Karen intellectuals, arguably mostly Christians, participated at the forefront of the struggle when the Karens began their movement. It is now time for the Karens to gather their strength from all walks of life, including the urban intellectuals, whose voice must play a critical role in promoting awareness about and raising the profile of Karens in general. The rural populace, whose steadfast resistance to forced cultural assimilation has always been crucial to the very existence of Karen today. In order to accomplish this task, the Karens need a leadership that is not only committed but also skillfully creative in policymaking and competently attuned to the international political situation.

1881 –- The Karen National Association (KNA) was formed with the aim
to gain a fair representation and voice for the Karen people in the then British
Burma government.

February 5, 1947 --- The Karen National Union (KNU) was formed, combining the Karen National Association (KNA), the Buddhist Karen National Association (BKNA), the Karen Central Organization (KCO) and the Karen Youth Organization (KYO).

January 15, 2004 — A KNU delegation of 20 Karen officials, led by Gen Bo Mya, made a historic trip to Rangoon for talks with top junta leaders, including Khin Nyunt, to discuss an official ceasefire agreement.

January 20, 2004 — Khin Nyunt meets with Bo Mya and hosts a dinner party for the Karen delegation at the Kandawgyi Palace Hotel, which marks Bo Mya’s 77th birthday.

January 22, 2004 — The Karen delegation concludes the trip by
reaching an informal ceasefire agreement with the junta but sign no
documents.

Since the early 1990s, however, a sizable number of Karen from the Thai-Burma border, along with a much larger number of Burman students, have left their homes and villages to either pursue their education or simply resettle in developed countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. Although most of them encountered a different kind of struggle for their survival in the new environment, some of them remain politically active and continue to look for ways to alleviate the suffering of their people. The formation of Karen community organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, and their cooperation with their counterparts back home may be seen as a gesture of the growing political awareness and activism among the Karen youths studying and working abroad. The emergence of several new civic organizations such as Karen Students’ Network Group, Karen River Watch and others also demonstrate that political pluralism has gradually emerged in the Karen society along the Thai-Burma border area and overseas. This can be interpreted as a positive and powerful evolution that every healthy society needs in order to prevent split among the people.

Many young Karens now seem to become more interested in politics beyond their ethnic realm. We as Karens have learned, and perhaps are still learning, where our struggle for right to self-determination fits into the Burmese politics as a whole. The new political dynamism of fresh and well-informed young Karens may possibly give hope to the currently enervated Karen struggle, which has been led by the KNU for more than fifty years. In this treacherous time, the movement of new Karen generation hopefully proves to be a signal of change in strategy for national survival, and a new style of identity preservation. Saw Ba U Gyi, credited with being the founder of Karen resistance movement, left the famed four principles[6] for his people and correctly predicted “the struggle will be long and hard.” But it is up to the new generation Karens to continue the unfinished struggle with not only determination but also skills and professionalism.

Finally, most mainstream Burman political organizations have now come to acknowledge the necessity of accommodating a degree of the right to self-determination for ethnic nationalities in the future political system of Burma. The level of self-determination, as they agreed, will be delineated at a future national convention to be held preferably by a democratic government.[7] It will certainly require a deep reserve of political and negotiation skills for the Karens to successfully participate in such political process. As much as the Karens' quest for their collective right to self-determination is theoretically justified, the practicality of having such a right can be extremely complicated at best, but not impossible. The salience of ethnicity in Burma politics, after all, is a reality imposed by history that must be confronted with the consideration of appropriate political and cultural measures, that at least recognize and respond to basic human needs for identity, security and equal participation. Inasmuch as the Karens are resolved in the armed resistance, they must also learn to compete, compromise and cooperate with their adversary on the political table. It is hoped that when the time comes the Karens will be ready to engage in national political dialogues not only with the Burman but also with other ethnic nationalities in mapping out the details of future Karen state within a federal union of Burma. The “devil,” as they say, “is in the details,” and challenges arise then will undoubtedly be extraordinary.

[1] Silverstein, "Fifty Years of Failure in Burma," in Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific, ed. Michael E. Brown and Sumit Ganguly, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997.
[2] From the biographic book on ‘Mahn Ba Zan’ by his son, Robert Zan (published 1993, in Burmese, p. 75): on March 3, 1948, a meeting was convened by the Burmese AFPFL government, headed by U Nu, the Prime Minister, and Bo Let Ya, Bo Po Kun and U Kyaw Nyein as members, where they conferred with the KNU leaders, led by Saw B U Gyi, with members of Saw Tha Din, Saw Bellay, and Thra Tha Hto. At that meeting, U Nu pointed out that demonstrations and conflicts should not have taken place but that the KNU should come in the legal fold and ask for a state within the Law. Saw Ba U Gyi replied that it would not be possible for the Karens to get a state within the Parliament (apparently referring to the Constitutional Assembly having a lopsided Burman majority); and these conflicts arose while special arrangements were being requested. To this, PM U Nu said, “If you want a Karen state, you’ll have to fight for it, this is all we can do.”
[3] Statement released by the Karen National Union, March 1995.
[4] KNU explains its position on the whole talks process in detail in a small booklet published in 1998. The booklet was translated into English by the Research Division of the Karen National League (KNL).
[5] Saw Ba U Gyi expressed his view in his last speech given at the Karen Club in Insein a few months before his assassination on August 12, 1950.
[6] The Four Principles laid down by Saw Ba U Gyi are: 1) For us surrender is out off question; 2) The recognition of Karen State must be completed; 3) We shall retain our arms; and, 4) We shall decide our own political destiny.
[7] The Marnerplaw Agreement, in which the basic political process is outlined, states that "a true national convention involving all indigenous nationalities and all political parties will be convened" to "draw up a true Federal Union constitution in accordance with the desires of indigenous nationalities and all people" (NCUB, 1998).

The Revolving Illusion and the Unfortunate Demise of Reason

2006-02-06T17:13:00.000-08:00

The Revolving Illusion and the Unfortunate Demise of Reason

By -- Saw Kapi

A few like-minded individuals, completely blinded by self-glorifying passion that revolves around touchy subjects such as nationalism and national revolution, seem unable to get out of fallacious paradigm. Apparently, those individuals do not think beyond what seems to be self-defeating negativity.

We should not be misled. Nationalism by all means is a fine notion, rich in perspectives of historical events, numerous in kinds, and countless characters involved therein. When nationalistic sentiment is driven constantly by reasoning – of learned individuals – and guided precisely by the realities of environment, it can instigate endless creative power of nationalities, thereby transforming itself into unstoppable driving force for change. This sort of nationalism is capable of advancing a nation forward, not driving her backward – politically and economically. However, there are some of us, who habitually misuse the concept of nationalism mainly to propagate, frustrate and alienate others and pitifully keep themselves afloat, to some extent politically, in the midst of this virtual community.

Should sitting and "wondering" – about what other must do or, in this case, must "celebrate"– be one's singular trademark of "nationalism", then those who had sacrificed their blood in defense of our people's liberty must have done so utterly in vain. We often heard of nationalists and revolutionaries alike standing up against unimaginable odds and fought against what – to many ordinary others – may seem undefeatable. But at least to the one who pens this note, simply wondering and complaining about what others don't do seems completely antithesis of what a true nationalist should do.

It is unsurprising that from such ilk of man come repeated questions, but not a single answer. And from such mind breeds only negative thoughts, never a positive view. It sounds, after all, more like the young man is in a revolving illusion rather than revolution. On a much broader note, such a lamentable intellectual poverty among the so-called nationalists among us may help explain why the struggle has been taking extraordinarily long. Let's hope that this seemingly unfortunate demise of reason in this youthful but illusionary mind does not discourage us from doing meaningful things in our own ways, wherever we are, for the people we care and with whom we share our inalienable affinity.

On Karen Nationalism

2005-08-16T10:34:00.000-07:00

Towards a True Meaning of Patriotism

By – Saw Kapi

When it comes to nationalist leaders, there seems to be no shortage of shining example to look up to among the Karen people. Dr. San C. Po, arguably the Karen equivalent of Dr. Sun Yet Hsin of China, was one of the foremost Karen intellectual nationalists, who articulated eloquently, albeit unsuccessfully, the need for Karen independence. Intellectual leader such as Saw Aung Hla, the one and only Karen historian to date, sought to establish credible Karen migration history. Dr. T. Thanbyar and Po Lay Tay, despite their close affiliation with Christian religion, were able to expound the entire Karen people on how we as a people should develop and move forward. Mahn Saw Bu, a well known community leader from the Delta Region, for instance, attempted to sacrifice his own life to save the lives of fellow innocent Karens, who were about to be executed by the Japanese troops. He was said to have prefixed his name with both “Mahn” and “Saw” to capture both sentiments of Pwo and Sqaw, crossing tribal lines in displaying his nationalism. Saw Ba Oo Gyi, a man of selfless character, notwithstanding the world class education he received, disregarded a professional career and did his utmost for the Karen people. He uncompromisingly led the Karen National Union during its early turbulent years and committed his whole life for his people.

Historically, Karen nationalism (read – patriotism) has been the one that entails utmost dedication and personal sacrifice. These leaders, whose names I mentioned above, had contributed their skills and expertise in numerous ways to uplifting their people, both under the British colonial rule and in the early period of post-independence Burma. And yet unfortunately, the struggle hitherto is unfinished. Between the resource-hungry neighbors and the ruthless military regime, the Karens are up against enormous uphill battles in their fight for self-determination. In the wake of this socio-political reality, it is truly compulsory that the Karens, especially revolutionary Karens, adopt the kind of nationalism that not only accepts ideological diversity but also encourages political pragmatism and fosters strategic creativity.

Far-sighted nationalism is the kind that encourages people to seek out learning, acquire knowledge, and explore new ideas and ways to achieve our desired goal. Besides, a pragmatic nationalist learns from the goodness of other people and contributes positively and practically to the well being of his or her people. A confident nationalist needs not declare that he or she is a “nationalist” for his or her works stand to be his proof. Included in this category are the followings:

· Nationalist (read – patriotic hereinafter) Karen fighters fight in the front line, protecting their people by sacrificing their flesh and blood because they believe in defending their own people. They yearn for peace and talk about how to achieve it. They don’t brag about fighting.

· Nationalist Karen educators encourage their fellow Karen people to study hard, and endeavor to find educational opportunities for the people so that they can compete with others intellectually. Nationalists of this category believe in the freedom of human mind, which comes from knowledge acquired through learning. They also understand that only with adequate human resources in various capacities, can we build our desired nation.

· Nationalist Karen legal experts can put forth compelling arguments on behalf of their people, create healthy debate and raises the profile of their people’s struggle. This class of nationalists with skills and ability speak, read and write to defend their people intellectually. They make intellectual contribution to the international community and educate, not propagate their own people.

· A nationalist Karen computer engineer, for instance, promotes the profile of his or her people by creating websites in honor of his people, thereby allows others to learn of his people, and provides opportunities for his or her fellow compatriots to share their ideas and opinions.

· A nationalist Karen computer/language expert, for example, invents Karen fonts and contributes positively to the promotion of Karen language by using modern technology. This kind of nationalists understands the importance of modern technology and therefore seeks to preserve their linguistic and cultural heritages using the skills he or she possesses.

· At the least, a creative Karen nationalist finds the best way to make use of modern technology for the benefit of his or her people. For example, he or she started out the idea of online discussion group, which allow his fellow compatriots to have the opportunity to vent, express and explain their feelings and ideas. While some people make good use of it, some abuse it.

Shortsighted nationalism, however, boasts only about its goodness but tenaciously hides its flaws and errors; therefore those who subscribes to it are not capable of learning anything from their shortfalls but bound to repeat them. People included in this category are often lost in negative thoughts and find faults of others easily. They are instigative but short of formulating their own opinion. Somewhat inferior within, nationalists of this brand often find it necessary to repeatedly praise his or her own people and demean others. They needed to remind themselves verbally that they are good, they are great and they are pure, etc. Nationalism combined with vision can produce prosperity and promote peace. While a broad-minded nationalism can preserve diversity and encourage creative ideas, narrow-minded one maintains "we-are-better" attitude, is very trivial in essence and utterly divisive in nature. Thus, we shall embrace the former and reject the latter.

No one --individual or organization-- has the monopoly over the destiny of Karen people. Each individual Karen must play his or her own role. To echo the words of former president Nelson Mandela, no one is irreplaceable. That includes this author, the readers and all those leaders and ordinary people that we know. One must not fail to note that if the love for our people alone could carry Karen people to their desired goal; we would have already reached there for a long time. Regrettably, that has not been the case.

In the end, we have no choice but to tread on the path of this struggle with reason and pragmatism, and look forward to the future. Our future can be much brighter if we can avoid dwelling in our own feeling of insecurity, and focus on achieving excellence in seeking knowledge and expertise. A nation, after all, cannot survive on her negativism; it must instead strive for her comprehensive progress with a sense of positive hope and practical efforts.

It is time for the Karens to embrace the kind of nationalism that encourages our people to think, to reason, to question, to be creative, to learn, to compete, and to cooperate in this world, where, unfortunately, only "the fittest survive." The world we live in is a competitive world. The economy we are compelled to be a part of is knowledge-based economy. It is in these contexts that, I believe, we must seek to develop and adopt a true meaning of our patriotism.

++++

From Political Aspiration to National Consensus

2005-07-01T16:46:00.000-07:00

From Political Aspiration to National Consensus: The Need for a Karen National Consultative Conference

By Saw Kwe Htoo, Naw May Oo, Saw Htoo Htoo Lay and Saw Mutu Say Poe
Mizzima News (www.mizzima.com)
April 9, 2004

The people of Burma, particularly the Karen people, are now living in one of the most treacherous times in the history of our country. We stand today at the crossroads of our resistance movement that has been unwaveringly led by the Karen National Union (KNU) for more than half a century. The Karen people’s support for KNU isn’t confined to the rural areas of the Kawthoolei, or Karen State, where armed resistance has been concentrated. The vast majority of Karen people throughout Burma look up to the KNU as their national political organization, not simply a Thai-Burmese border-based organization. And they, not just the KNU leadership, prefer a political solution to the conflict that has plagued the country since independence in 1948.

The modern chapter of the Karen movement for national identity and self-determination began with the historic formation of the Karen National Union (KNU) on February 5, 1947 by the coming together of four existing Karen organizations, namely the Karen National Association (KNA), the Buddhist Karen National Association (BKNA), the Karen Central Organization (KCO) and the Karen Youth Organization (KYO). Under the leadership of the Karen National Union (KNU), the Karens began, or rather were compelled to begin, their armed revolution – or insurrection, as it has usually been depicted – on the commonly recognized date of January 31, 1949.

Obviously, not all the Karen people belong to the KNU, but the KNU, by virtue of its historical legitimacy, belongs to the entire Karen people. This has been and still is evident by the Karen people inside or elsewhere, unlike other ethnic nationalities, not forming any credible Karen political party, except a small Karen National Congress for Democracy Party, during the 1990 elections. The main reason was they felt the KNU was there representing and fighting for their ethnic and civil rights. And they looked up to the KNU's political leadership. By the same token, they believe that the KNU must constantly seek strategic coordination and support from Karens everywhere, inside, border and the world over.

At this point, it is important to note that the KNU is not a political party. Quite the contrary, it is a national union that has long historical roots and solid legitimacy. There are fundamental differences between a political party and a national union. A political party can speak only for and along its party line, the party’s ideology and party platform. But a national union must speak for and pursue the collective political desire of the entire people, in our case, the Karen’s the right to self-determination and ethnic equality of the Karen people throughout Burma. A national union should be nationally inclusive in its character, composition and coordination. The political ideology and strategy that it adopts must be a product of national deliberation, whereas a political party can operate as an exclusive entity and the policy and ideology that it pursues can be - and often is - a product of the party’s executive committee meetings, especially in a country like Burma.
The ultimate goal of the Karen resistance movement is to achieve the right to self-determination of the Karen people with the guarantee of ethnic equality within a genuine union of Burma. That is our principle goal; we must stand firm on that. On the other hand, continuing military operations, declaring a cease-fire, attending or not attending the National Convention, seeking a tri-partite dialogue and/or multi-partite dialogue are all manifestations of different strategies. They are only means through which we strive to realize our goal. If and when necessary, we can and should be flexible with the means we adopt.

Since the inception of Karen resistance movement in 1949, Burma's internal political dimensions, as well as regional and international situations, have changed significantly. At the advent of economic globalization and the digital world, the Karen's struggle for self-determination and ethnic equality cannot be fought purely in the realm of politics. The powerful forces of economic globalization, in the name of free trade and development, have brought both challenges and opportunities for our movement. It is inevitable that we as a movement must confront cold realities and, while contending the powerful currents of socially rapacious and uncaring cooperation between governments, make the best use of emerging opportunities that the geo-political circumstances, geo-economic trends, and technological advancement of the day bring.

Having fought relentlessly for more than half-a-century, we as a movement need, as any healthy movement does, to critically review our strategies and approaches. While the KNU is the only organization that has been leading the armed resistance, it is recognized that several Karen groups and individuals have emerged lately and played their role throughout these years for the survival and development of our people. The emergence of numerous interest groups and development organizations that aim to strive for the social, economic and political advancement of Karen people must be seen as a great product of a given historical period.

Due to the changing political circumstances, many Karens have left their cherished homeland and migrated to Thailand and elsewhere. Under the highly oppressive political situation, those who remained inside Burma have also lost direct contact with the resistance movement. But, despite this physical distance, differences in socio-political and intellectual orientation, the majority of Karen people share a common vision: to have ethnic equality and a right to self-determination for Karen people within a genuine Union of Burma. Varying experiences and the difficulties related to the conditions under which our people have to live and operate have created possibilities for divisions. These must be resolved through open debates and deliberation with the view toward resolving natural differences that may, and do, exist within any social or political community. The KNU is not only a revolutionary organization but it also strives to operate, though admittedly not always successfully, on democratic principles.

Rapidly changing circumstances at national and international levels necessitate a review of our strategies and approaches. The most challenging task ahead for the Karens is to generate a new generation of leadership that is capable of looking beyond the same voices that recycle the old mantras or prescribe the same solutions, which can grasp the complex dynamics of ethnicity, and stay attuned to the regional political situation of this increasingly interconnected world. The Karens need a leadership that is not only committed to the Karen’s collective vision of self-determination within a genuine union of Burma, but that is also skillful and inventive in policy making, intellectually and strategically flexible, and capable of adapting to and taking advantage of, new developments in Burma, the region and the world.

It is now time for the Karens from all walks of life throughout Burma to congregate in a national meeting that will enable them to explore peaceful and lasting solutions to the problems that have plagued them as the largest ethnic nationalities group, the union and Burma generally. As the half-a-century long national resistance movement is at its crossroads, there is a strong need for a National Consultative Conference to serve as a forum for Karen people everywhere to discuss all the matters that urgently concern them at the national level. Through a National Consultative Conference the Karen people we will be able to find a national consensus, in accord with their political culture, to carry on the struggle and realize their just dream. The dream of building a union of Burma where ethnic equality and right to self-determination are not words grudgingly written on the pages of a beautifully worded constitution, but lived realities of the Karen in particular and all ethnic nationalities in general. Such a consultative conference will also contribute to our preparation for the larger national dialogue or convention that is being proposed by the ruling military junta and contested by the democratic opposition for its lack of fairness and openness.

End.

(Saw Kwe Htoo, Governor of KNU's Mergui/Tavoy District, is also a member of the KNU Central Standing Committee. Naw May Oo, based in Washington DC, is with the KNU Foreign Affairs Department. Saw Htoo Htoo Lay is Joint General Secretary of KNU. Saw Mutu Say Poe is a member of the KNU Central Executive Committee.)

On Virtual Karen People's Square

2005-06-29T17:32:00.000-07:00

The Karenissues Forum: A Virtual Karen People’s Square?

by -- Saw Kapi

While it is not a real tangible space, Karenissues Forum indeed resembles a virtual People’s Square for Karen people.

We read and hear often about the Tiananmen Square (in the center of Beijing), Red Square (in downtown Moscow), and Independence Square (in Kiev, Ukraine), where people of respective country come to express their political opinions, display their national spirit, and proclaim their patriotism. Less noticeably, there also are those who come to these public squares to just quietly walk around and enjoy listening or reading the opinions of others.

There is one striking historical commonality that all the aforementioned places share – they all serve as places where voices of dissent are raised, authorities questioned, and, at times, political victories pronounced. So, in essence, these public squares are the symbols of freedom of expression. Precisely put, they accommodate the age-old yearning of the people for freedom of expression.

It is hoped, while we do not yet have a public square of our own in the physical sense, that this Karenissues Discussion Forum be genuinely utilized to express our opinions (not attitude) on current events, to share our positive views (not negative perception) about the society we live in, and to present our thoughtful analysis (not deceitful propaganda) aimed at progressing the people we claim to love.

Having said that, it is perfectly understandable if we (some of us) want to remain primly silent but attentively listen, read and learn from what others have to say. But, we as a people cannot remain indifferent to injustices that we witness with our own eyes. We can no longer be fence-sitters, even if that is our nature, on issues of national importance.

After almost two years of exercise, the Karenissues Forum indeed has become a virtual public square especially for those who possess the courage to speak their minds, the craving to express their thoughts, and the poise to do so with responsibility.

A Tribute

2005-06-24T10:03:00.000-07:00

A Father’s Day Observation
June 19, 2005, San Francisco

My dear father, a foremost teacher of mine, you are away at the moment but there, you feel much closer to home, we understand.

At this moment, a few thoughts come into my mind as I think about upcoming Father’s Day. I recall the good old days when I was still in my teen age. In a small town where there was no library, your collection of books was our only treasure. You introduced us to some of the greatest minds of 20th century -- Bertrand Russell, Leo Tolstoy, Earnest Hemingway, and the list goes on. It was through the great works of those people that we opened our eyes to this world, even before we left our small little hometown in the middle of Burma for a destination we were not certain of, but to its purpose we have hitherto kept ourselves abreast.

Not only did you encourage us to read great books but you also taught us how to respect them. That, I would say, is the greatest gift you have ever given to us: a habit of reading. Essentially, your passion in reading and your keenness in educating young minds distinguish who you really are to the world around you from what you appear to be from afar sometime to some people. You are not a university graduate, but you made “education” a household agenda, and you kept the names of most prestigious universities familiar to us. Above all, you compelled us to think highly of academia and make learning a life long endeavor.

You fascinated me with your occasional yet witty commentaries about the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, Vietnam War, and about great political leaders such as Nehru (and the Indian independence movement), Mao Tse Tung (and his infamous Long March) and Ho Chi Minh (and the resistance he led against the French and the American). All these that you have taught me, including your support of me to take part in the 1988 political demonstration, I must admit, form the basis of my political activism today.

A rare trait of you, may I mention at least, reluctantly however, is you hardly ever say “sorry” and I found it troublesome at times. You hardly ever admit that you made any mistake, and not being able to admit that, perhaps, is the only real weakness you have ever had in your life.

Happy Father’s Day!

Your son, Saw Kapi

Beyond Cease-fire

2005-06-21T10:00:00.000-07:00

Imagining a National Reconciliation in Burma: Beyond Cease-Fire

by -- Saw Kaw Htoo, Naw May Oo and Saw Kapi

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2004 (AScribe Newswire) -- Following is an editorial by Saw Kaw Htoo and Naw May Oo. The opinions expressed herein are entirely the authors'. This article does not represent the official position of any organization.

------------------

The Karen National Union delegation led by General Saw Bo Mya traveled to Rangoon last week for talks with top leaders of the Burmese military regime. The trip marked Gen. Bo Mya's first trip to Burma's capital since the inception of the Karen revolution in 1949, and it could be seen as an obvious gesture toward national reconciliation and finding a political solution with the regime. Of all the ethnic resistance forces that have engaged in cease-fire talks with the military regime, only the KNU flew into Rangoon directly from a foreign capital. Although there was no official media report about the arrival of KNU team, Prime Minister Khin Nyunt reportedly told the KNU delegation that the result of the meetings between the two sides would be announced to the country. The people of Burma, most of whom have endured tremendous sufferings under successive Burmese military regimes for the last half-century, are hoping that the ongoing peace efforts by the KNU and its legendary leader General Bo Mya bear fruit this time.

Since there were no preconditions set for the talks, it was supposed that both sides would discuss quite openly all matters of concern. Although the KNU team's main focus in this round of talks was to formalize a cease-fire deal with the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), it pursued this negotiation process with a long-term goal of gaining the right to self-determination for the Karen people in a future democratic Burma.

In fact, the KNU decided to go ahead with the planned talks amidst continuing human right violations by the SPDC troops in several Karen areas. Several Karen communities have already raised concerns over the regime's continued atrocities in Karen villages, the plight of Karen refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs), and, lately, about Karen political prisoners now in jails throughout Burma. It is easy to realize that peace and national reconciliation, in practice, are more than agreements between leaders from the two sides. The regime must cease its violent practices in Karen areas to prove its readiness to negotiate in good faith. From the KNU point of view, face-to-face meetings with the SPDC give them an opportunity to formally present their concerns, and at the same time to seek other overarching political ends. While both sides agreed that talks are fruitful and progressing, much needs to be done on both sides for negotiating a formal cease-fire agreement; setting up a process of monitoring infringements of the truce; and deciding how to deal with the more than 250,000 internally displaced people in the Karen state.

The delegation came back with an understanding that both sides must start working on their respective concerns before they can come up with a formal signed agreement.

After more than half a century of civil war, the situation is now ripe for resolution. Although the Burmese military regime has managed to weaken the KNU forces considerably in the last decade, the prospect for a complete victory by either side is dim. Currently, a cease-fire agreement is a necessary and important step but not a panacea for solving the deeper political problems. A formal cease-fire agreement should lay the groundwork for a mutually agreeable political settlement. This would include the drawing of military demarcation for the SPDC and KNU troops; the initiation of a national political dialogue that would incorporate all the political stakeholders, including the popular leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and National League for Democracy party, popularly elected in 1990; the drafting of a national constitution; and a nationwide referendum.

The SPDC must convince the people of Burma that it is sincerely following the path to democracy and national reconciliation, which should take place within a reasonable time frame. The regime must also foster a situation that would encourage the NLD to join its proposed resumption of the National Convention. While negotiating with the SPDC, the KNU may want to keep its options open by not discarding completely the proposed resumption of National Convention. What may be more imperative - and feasible - for the KNU and all the opposition groups to do, however, is to convince the SPDC to change the unfair National Convention guidelines and principles that compelled the NLD to walk out in 1996.

As the very first step, a viable ceasefire agreement must be achieved on mutually acceptable terms. Amid many concerns and uncertainties, some relevant examples of recent cease-fire agreements between governments and armed opposition groups and their consequences may offer useful lessons for our own. Recently, the Indian government and a Tamil resistance group agreed to hold talks. And there is also the cease-fire agreement recently signed between the two warring factions in Sudan.

In December 2001, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) expressed their willingness to engage in talks with the then newly-formed Sri Lankan government, the United National Front (UNF), by announcing a unilateral cease-fire. In response to the ceasefire, the UNF government cautiously announced the cessation of hostilities. Naturally, concerns were raised over the Tigers' sincerity about and commitment to a cease-fire agreement. The LTTE responded by extending the unilateral cease-fire until February 2002 to seek a more positive response from the UNF government towards entering into political negotiations. Eventually, both sides agreed to have foreign monitors to oversee the process. After periods of intense clashes and uncomfortable situations, the ceasefire between the LTTE and the UNF Government came into effect. Both parties nevertheless recognized that a final settlement to the ethnic conflict has yet to be implemented.

According to the principles enunciated in the Thimpu talks, Tamils were to be recognized as a nation with a homeland and the right to self-determination. Although the two parties could not agree on the condition upon which LTTE would become a separate state, they were prepared to settle for a viable alternative to a separate Tamil state. With the help of the international community, the parties came up with a solution - a united Sri Lanka in which the Tamil aspirations for regional autonomy would be respected.

The cease-fire in Sri Lanka demonstrates that third party intervention is necessary, whether it be local or international -- and that it should be absolutely up to the two parties in question to decide whether and whom they invite as the third party. In the case of Sri Lanka, both the government and LTTE specifically invited the Norwegian government to mediate, and so it did. Most importantly, Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga's honesty and political courage were vital to resolving the ethnic conflict and war between the government and the LTTE. She has acknowledged that, "international mediation is very often useful in helping the two opposing sides to find new and creative ways in which they can settle their problems in a manner that both sides can gain."

It is instructive to look at the current negotiation between the KNU and SPDC in the light of these examples. While the KNU agreed to relinquish its original demand to hold the talks in Bangkok and go to Rangoon instead, it has proposed that international observers be present at the talks. Unlike the UNF government in Sri Lanka, the SPDC has refused to allow the presence of international observers, let alone international intervention, in the negotiation process. Although both sides agreed to hold talks inside Burma to maintain the country's sovereignty in addressing its own problems, the presence of a third party or international observers could, in fact, enhance the integrity of negotiation process. As a matter of fact, international humanitarian involvement - at least from "like-minded" countries such as Thailand, Japan and Australia - would be necessary, if not essential, to the safe return home of refugees and IDPs. It is in the best interest of the Burmese regime as well as the KNU to invite the international community, both governments and non-governmental organizations, to observe and help, though not necessarily to intervene, in the process.

Against all odds, the KNU has made relentless efforts for peace in sending the high-level delegation led by its Vice Chairman General Bo Mya to Rangoon in the hope that a cease-fire agreement would significantly reduce forced relocation and human rights violations in Karen villages and enable internally displaced people to return to their homes and villages. As a first step in proving its sincerity, the SPDC should demilitarize several Karen areas and create conditions conducive to the Karen refugees' return home and resettlement in their villages.

After all, not only a deep reserve of political will but also a vast amount of political acumen is highly essential from all sides to resolve Burma's decades-long conflicts. Undoubtedly the path towards national reconciliation is complex. It requires all parties to take steps beyond cessation of fighting. Since 1948, a rigidly centralized state followed by military dominance in the government has exacerbated ethnic tensions. For the Karens and other ethnic nationalities of Burma, military-dominated unitary government is an anathema; a genuine national dialogue inclusive of the forces of ethnic nationalities and the NLD led by Aung San Suu Kyi is essential to finding a feasible, acceptable and lasting alternative.

-30-

Confronting the Realities

2005-06-21T09:58:00.000-07:00

Confronting the Realities: KNU Weighs Strategic Options for Burma's Political Deadlock

By Saw Kapi

MIZZIMA - March 19, 2004— Speculations abound within Burma's democratic forces and the international community in response to the proposal of the State Peace and Development Council, one of the longest-lasting military regimes in the world. The SPDC offers its seven-step road map that calls for the resumption of National Convention as its first step. Last week, the junta quietly sent its representative, Col. San Bwint, to the Thai-Burmese border to persuade the Karens to come back to the "legal fold" and to take part in the proposed process. Along with Col. San Bwint came U Khun Mya (a well-known Kachin ceasefire broker) and Rev. Saw Margay Gyi. Margay Gyi is the general secretary of the Bible Society - Burma, who is known for his cordial relationship with Prime Minister Khin Nyunt. Meanwhile, some Karen academics and> businessmen in Rangoon are eager to persuade the KNU to give serious consideration to PM Khin Nyunt's "road map" and to seize whatever opportunities there might be contained in the offer. Although the SPDC's intention toward the KNU remains unclear, it is obvious to the opposition forces that PM is strategetically approaching both cease-fire and non-cease-fire armed resistance groups to push for his seven-step initiative. Khin Nyunt is beefed up by supports from China and neighboring countries such as Thailand.

The KNU leadership needs to adopt a multi-prong approach that goes beyond usual closed-circle meetings among themselves. The rank and file of Karen National Liberation Army, the armed wing of KNU and other key democratic allies need to be informed strategically on time on the development of the situation. Keeping the international community and media organizations in the loop and seeking assistance from the Karen Diaspora in particular could be considered as part of a broader strategy.

The KNU has for the most part strived to find a more enduring solution to Burma's political problem by working with other nationalities and Burmese pro-democracy opposition groups. At the moment, the KNU seems to take a step further and explore the PM Khin Nyunt's seven-step political roadmap. A team of delegates including Maj. Ner Dah Mya, the commander of the KNLA's battalion 201 and son of KNU Vice Chairman Gen. Saw Bo Mya, and Lt. Col. Paw Doh of KNLA's Special Battalion 101, reportedly met with Col. San Bwint, the SPDC representative. Soon, a five-member KNU team also flew into Yangon on Wednesday evening. The five-member team that flew to Yangon apparently did not include Maj. Ner Dah Mya. The delegation is meeting with high-ranking SPDC officials including PM Khin Nyunt. Sources from the KNU stated, however, that the team has not been given any authority by the KNU Central Committee to cut any deal. According to these sources, the team was authorized only to find out various proposed options of solving Burma's political problem. The fact that Gen. Bo Mya himself has orchestrated this move makes it more interesting. The KNU team, which consists mainly of junior KNLA commanders, raises some questions on the seriousness of the meeting. Nevertheless, the move indicates KNU's noteworthy but unusual approach. This type of engagement cannot, however, be considered a policy change, because the KNU's official position has always emphasized its willingness to discuss political issues with SPDC. Whether the KNU will be invited to attend the National Convention or not remains a matter of speculation. The KNU may accept the invitation as an opportunity to resolve political deadlock with the SPDC, but the KNU will surely take into consideration the NLD's official position regarding the convention.

Burma's current ethnic problems should be examined in larger regional context, given the recent surging interest and involvement of the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai in Burmese internal politics. Some senior Thai officials are reportedly persuading the KNU for a ceasefire agreement with the SPDC. The Bangkok Post reports that Thailand will host an international meeting to discuss Burma’s proposed "road map" toward democratic transition in Bangkok this month. According to the report, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra confirmed Thailand was expecting representatives from up to 10 countries to attend the forum which is due to be held on December 15. As Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yeu has effectively retired and Prime Minister Mahathia Mohammad of Malaysia is soon to leave his office, it seems that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is keen on asserting Thai political influence over the Southeast Asian regional matters. Both Shinawatra and Sathirathai see the attempts to resolve Burma's political deadlock as a stepping stone for addressing larger regional issues. Both see the need to tame the rogue Burmese regime and both understand that solving the Burma's problem and/or keeping it at a manageable level would benefit their country politically and economically. Foreign policies, in the end, are a product of both national interests and personal ambitions.

On the one hand, the KNU must strategically consider its options to get out of the current political deadlock and find the best possible solution for the Karen people and Burma. But it would be foolhardy, on the other hand, to deal with the SPDC as if it was a completely unified entity with all the good intentions for the country. Some raised concerns that if the pro-democracy opposition groups, including the National League for Democracy and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, choose to reject PM Khin Nyunt's seven-step road map, it will strengthen the position of hardliners within the SPDC. Ethnic national armed resistance groups have limited options, as it is evident from the fifty plus years of resistance against successive military regimes. Of particular concern is the Karens, whose destiny should not be solely at the mercy of the SPDC. For a regime that has relied on the policy of suppression for decades, sincerity has not been a significant concern and, presumably, is not of high importance. It is up to the KNU and other democratic forces to continue struggling with a knowledge that politics is dynamic, and that any political outcomes will depend on their ability to strike a strategic deal at the right time with their opponents.

Edward W. Said, the late world-renowned Palestinian intellectual who passed away recently in New York in exile, once observed that "Look at situation as contingent, not as inevitable, look at them as the result of a series of historical choices made by men and women, as facts of society made by human beings . . . “ It is imperative that the KNU leadership makes the right choices amidst the crossroads of its resistance history, for their decisions will have long-term consequences on both the Karens as a people and Burma as a nation.

Interview with Mizzima

2005-06-21T09:50:00.000-07:00

MIZZIMA: Interview with Saw Kapi
March 14, 2004

"Without lasting resolution to questions of ethnic self-determination and national power sharing, armed struggles that have flamed Burma's periphery for more than fifty years will not be resolved.” Saw Kapi

Mizzima: How did you get involved in the movement and what did you do on the border?

Saw Kapi: I am a product of the 1988 political wave. I joined the student movement in Toungoo (Pegu Division of Burma), my hometown, and later came to the Thai-Burma border to join the armed resistance movement of Karen people led by the Karen National Union (KNU). I taught for a year in Kawmoorah High School run by KNU in 1989. I subsequently moved to KNU's Mergui/Tavoy District and taught at a local high school there for two years before I came to sojourn in the United States in 1993.

Mizzima: Was there any specific personal experience, which pushed you to join the movement?

Saw Kapi: It was my father, who encouraged me to join the anti-government demonstration in 1988. I was then studying at Toungoo Government Technical Institute (TGTI). Along with the habit of reading my parents installed a sense of national spirit in me. My mother especially was very strict on us when it comes to maintaining Karen identity. If we didn't speak Karen at home, we didn't get to eat. But, they also introduced us, my three sisters and I, to Burmese literature, modern as well as classic. At home, we were taught to be concerned about the welfare of the people and the country. When I saw with my own eyes soldiers shooting the students who were peacefully demonstrating on September 19, 1988, I was shocked and enraged. After that I made a decision to leave the city for the Thai-Burma border, where I joined the armed revolution.

Mizzima: What were your personal experiences while you were on the border, for example the conditions for Karen refugees? Was it hurtful for you to see the situation there?

Saw Kapi: I was a teacher when I was in the refugee camp. It was particularly painful to see thousands of kids growing up without proper education. Many of them have lost their parents and siblings in war. Many of them grew up thinking that Burman people and Burmese soldiers are the same thing, and all they know about Burmese soldiers is that they came to burn villages, loot their possessions and rape their sisters. That is not good for the future of the country. How do we explain the concept of national reconciliation to them?

Mizzima: What did you do while in the United States?

Saw Kapi: I have continued my political activism here in the US. In the late 1990's I joined the Free Burma Coalition's Burma Speakers Bureau and engaged in a number of public speaking events at university campuses throughout the US. Now I am a member of FBC's Burma Strategy Group (FBC/BSG). I have also been active in organizing Karen youth and students internationally. We, a group of Karen activists and scholars, have recently established a semi-policy think-tank, the Institute of Education and Development Studies (IEDS). In the meantime, I am a country representative for the Karen National Union (KNU) here in the US.I studied International Relations for my undergraduate degree at San Francisco State University and later continued my graduate studies at the Center for Development Economics at Williams College in Massachusetts, where I received an M.A. in Development Economics. I amcurrently working for the University of San Francisco.

Mizzima: What do you think of Burma's current situation?

Saw Kapi: It now seems the KNU is pursing flexible strategies, but I can see that the goal remains the same. The KNU has been fighting for the Karen people to achieve their right to self-determination and equal rights within a true Union of Burma. Continuing military operations, declaring a cease-fire, attending or not attending the National Convention, seeking tri-partite dialogue and/or multi-partite dialogue are all different strategies. Those are only different means through which we seek to reach our goal. If and when necessary, we can be flexible with any or many of them. We do not want to get stuck with one way or one strategy. Now, with the talks ongoing, the SPDC has a chance to prove whether or not it really wants a true and lasting national reconciliation.The resumption of the National Convention proposed by Prime Minister Khin Nyunt as the first step of the road map is not a fair game plan by any standard. However, it is not the National Convention per se that we want to reject; it is the rules of the game - the so-called 104 guidelines and 6 principles - that we are questioning and refuting, because those are what make the process unfair and undemocratic.

We must remember that the NLD attended the National Convention until 1996.At this point, the SPDC must convince the people of Burma that it is sincerely following the path to democracy and national reconciliation, which should take place within a reasonable time frame. It must also foster a situation that would be conducive for the NLD to rejoin the National Convention. What may be imperative, and feasible, for the KNU and all the opposition groups to do, at this point, is to convince the SPDC to change the unfair National Convention guidelines and principles that compelled the NLD to walk out in 1996. It is time for us to re-examine ourselves as a movement. We cannot afford to continue this political deadlock, for the consequence of this it is the enormous suffering of the people.

Mizzima: Can you shed some light on the politics of ethnicity and Burma's prospect for national reconciliation?

Saw Kapi: In my view, ethnicity is an identity, something we feel close to our heart, and hence it is inevitably a part of our politics. The politics of ethnicity, therefore, is also politics of identity. When it involves nation states and governments, it is usually seen as nationalism, a sort of positive force, so to speak. But, when it involves minority or smaller ethnic groups, it is often perceived astribalism, a negative force, narrow and destructive. But, if there is any lesson for us to learn from Burma's half-a-century long ethnic conflict, it must be that ethnicity is not something that can beeliminated by force. It is a reality that must be dealt with creativity and broadmindedness by all of us.The military leadership has been carrying out its scorch-earth campaign against ethnic nationalities particularly in the rural areas of the country. I hope that current talks between the KNU and SPDC lead to the real end of such campaigns by the military regime. Forced relocation of Karen, Karenni, Shan, and Mon villages, and everyday human rights abuses in ethnic areas compounded the problems that already were perilous. The suffering of Burma's estimated 600,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) is often far worse than that of the refugees in neighboring countries, who receive at least some outside aid. In several ethnic areas, there are massive numbers of IDPs, mostly villagers who have fled their homes to escape conscription as military porters or other abuses.

The greatest challenge for us is to figure out ways to explain the concept of reconciliation to these people.Our efforts for national reconciliation must go beyond meetings between "leaders" of the ethnic nationalities and of the SPDC. Reconciliation first starts within our heart, and it must be understood and accepted by the very people who suffer the unspeakable atrocities of the military government. To get out of this current predicament, we need to look at ourselves in a new way - that we're only one of the diverse ethnic groups in the country, not its sole owner. It is sometime rather striking that even those of us, who claim to be the proponents of democratic change and national reconciliation, do not notice that the real national reconciliation must first begin within our hearts and in the way we see ourselves. For Burma, national reconciliation means rethinking and redefining ourselves, and this can be done only when we learn to recognize diversity in our practices and respect our differences from our hearts.Ethnic mistrust and enmity are common, but not inevitable, features of human society. The peoples of Burma have a troubled past and present, but are not necessarily bound to remain so. That, I believe, is the raison d'etre of this conversation.

Mizzima: In what ways have mono-ethnic and mono-religious leadership of the ethnically Burman Buddhist military officers, and to a lesser extent, civil servants undermined the concept of diversity as Burma's strength?

Saw Kapi: The absence of an institutional mechanism to accommodate diverse identities in an ethnically diverse nation like Burma has painfully generated different political struggles and even armed resistance movements by a variety of ethnic nationalities. To me, the current unflagging conflict between the multiple ethnic groups and successive Burmese governments is nothing less than a struggle against the state power in defense of their identity needs.Unlike other countries in Africa and Eastern Europe, the kind of ethnic conflict that we experience in Burma is not necessarily between ethnic groups, but it has arisen mainly between the government and different ethnic minority groups. In this context, the role of political institutions in facilitating diversity is extremely important, simply because they determine how resources are distributed among ethnic groups, enforce the rule of law and regulations, and most importantly,foster much needed social infrastructure.

Mizzima: What do you see as the contributions of Karen people in general and the KNU in particular to maintaining the Union of Burma and its post-conflict reconstruction as a modern, developed nation wherein there is ethnic equality, the rule of just law and democratic government?

Saw Kapi: We should learn to promote the idea of peaceful coexistence and diversity as a positive force. Trust is not something we can gain easily. It is encouraging that some mainstream Burman political organizations have come to recognize the necessity of accommodating a degree of the right to self-determination in the future political system of Burma. The level of self-determination, however, is to be determined by all the ethnic nationalities at a national convention to be held. It will indeed require a deep reserve of political and negotiation skills to successfully participate in this political process in the national convention. As much as our quest for the right to self-determination is historically justified, the practicality of having such a right can be extremely complicated at best, but not impossible. After all, the salience of ethnicity in Burma politics is a reality imposed by history that must be confronted with the consideration of appropriate structural measures, both in cultural and political realms, that at least recognize and respond to basic human needs for identity, security and participation. We need to be prepared to engage in political dialogue not only with the SPDC but also with other ethnic nationalities in mapping out the details of the future union of Burma.While it is of paramount importance for us to be able to maintain our culture, our identity and our livelihood, it is essential that we diligently promote and carefully nurture a sense of citizenship among all the people of Burma. Only then will Burma survive as a modern nation state. It is the responsibility of all, not of a single group.

Mizzima: What would you propose as a remedy to this historical problem? How would you advocate Burma's diversity - cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious - as the country's strength to celebrate and cherish, as opposed to a threat to a predominantly Buddhist and Burman nation?

Saw Kapi: Experience has shown that diversity can be the strength of the society if it is accommodated wisely and creatively. In the case of Burma, it will definitely require a major transformation of political institution. First of all, by accepting the social realities, a pluralistic government, which must come to power through an electoral process, can incorporate the social creativity in its reform process. Reflecting diversity, a political institution (in this case,meta-institution, namely constitution) that allows a hierarchy of governments with a delineated scope of authority, that is to say, different levels of government with specific powers, is essential. In Burma's specific context, there should be, at least, two levels of government, mainly state government that represents each major ethnic group (Shan, Kachin, Karen and etc.) and a central government in which each ethnic group is fairly represented. Here, the issue of diversitycan be addressed by allowing the state governments to have some sort of authority over the economy and education sector within their jurisdictions.

Mizzima: I want to ask you what is you vision for future Burma: how do you see Burma in the next ten years and what would you like to see Burma?

Saw Kapi: Predicting is always a risky business. It would be the last thing I want to do. But I can tell you what I would like to see for Burma in the next ten years.A peaceful and democratic Burma requires congruous accommodation among the country's diverse ethnic groups. Without lasting resolution to questions of ethnic self-determination and national power sharing, armed struggles that have flamed Burma's periphery for more than fifty years will not be resolved. Only after a political settlement is negotiated, will the process of true national reconciliation, in the most sober sense of the word, begin within and it may take several years to heal the wounds of the country, both physical and emotional.A realistic look at the current situation in the country gives us a mixed picture. There are some reasons to be encouraged, but there is a long hard road ahead. If we can come to an agreed upon set of principles for the proposed National Convention, it could become a meaningfulpolitical reform through which we can achieve lasting national reconciliation. Those in power have too much fear of reprisal should they lose power, and those out of power have not indicated any intention to desist from such reprisal should they come into power.

Mizzima: One more specific question: Do you see any gap between Burman and ethnic minority nationalities in terms of mutual understanding and trust? If yes, what are the differences? How can these differences be bridged?

Saw Kapi: Prior to 1988, most Burman people grew up knowing the Karen only through government-controlled media and propaganda. The Karens, conversely, equate the government/the military regime with the Burman people. Hence, a certain level of misunderstanding and mistrust existed. That has gradually changed over the years after 1988 when thousands of Burmese students came to the border and joined hands with the Karen in armed resistance. We still have a lot more to work on. Public education can be the key in bridging these gaps. You and I, we both have the responsibility to bridge this gap.

(Saw Kapi was a teacher for the Karen refuge children in Thai-Burma border, then later moved to United States for studies. He is now country representative of the Karen National Union and a member of Free Burma Coalition's Burma Strategy Group.)

On National Reconciliation and Negotiation

2005-06-21T09:48:00.000-07:00

Talking with the SPDC: The Politics of Negotiation and KNU's Cautious Efforts for National Reconciliation

By Saw Kapi and Naw May Oo

MIZZIMA NEWS (April 2004) -- Deliberately led by its Vice Chairman, Gen. Saw Bo Mya, the Karen National Union (KNU) recently made a series of efforts in pursuit of peace that caught many in the Burma's opposition movement by surprise. A five-member KNU delegation, composed mainly of junior military officers, was sent to Rangoon on December 3 for initial talks with the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Earlier, the team met with SPDC point man Col. Sann Pwint in Bangkok before proceeding to Rangoon. Upon their return from Rangoon, the five-member KNU team announced that they had reached a "gentleman's agreement" with the SPDC, calling for both sides to stop shooting as part of a confidence building measure toward further negotiations. Because the KNU has yet to start any serious political discussion with the SPDC, Gen. Saw Bo Mya suggested lately that the gentleman's agreement, in practice, might be considered an agreement between the KNLA, the armed wing of KNU, and the SPDC.

Although some may have thought otherwise, it would be a mistake to assume that Gen. Bo Mya is not acting as a leader of the KNU. In spite of all the previous failed talks, the KNU continues to tread cautiously on the path of negotiation, engaging in the policy of open talks with the SPDC and making genuine and concerted efforts toward achieving a long overdue national reconciliation. Nevertheless, how successful these efforts will be depends largely on the political will of SPDC. The SPDC has the option of halting all of its military offensives against the Karen and inviting all the stakeholders such as the KNU and the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to the table of national dialogue, which may well be in the form of National Convention. If not, the SPDC may choose to simply continue its various human rights violations against Karen civilians, such as those disclosed in the December 27 media release by the KNU, and prove that the regime is deficient in political will to pursue the path to a true national reconciliation.

Historically, the SPDC has insisted that it wants the KNU to stop fighting first, agree to enter the "legal fold" and then participate in the national development process. In 1996 representatives of the SPDC told the KNU that because the current ruling regime was not a political organization; the KNU would have to discuss its political concerns at a future political forum, referring to the National Convention. And yet the negotiations failed in the past because they required the KNU to return to "legal fold," with the unacceptable condition of first 'relinquishing the military course of action,' which, in the opinion of KNU, simply amounts to surrender.

In an attempt to demonstrate the KNU's desire for a genuine national reconciliation to the international community, Gen. Saw Bo Mya also sought an opportunity to attend the Thai-sponsored international forum on Burma in Bangkok on December 15, 2003. However, the Thai foreign ministry denied the request, reportedly on the ground that the forum was meant only for government-to-government discussion. Equally unfortunate is the most recent rejection by the SPDC of the KNU's proposal to hold further talks in Bangkok. The SPDC may be concerned about relinquishing full control over the process, and at the same time views the KNU's revolution as an internal matter. On the KNU's part, it has requested to meet again with the representatives of SPDC in Bangkok not only because it wants to meet in a neutral venue, but also to recognize the role that the Thai government plays in Burma's transition to democracy.

As widely reported in the Thai media, senior Thai military officials have in fact played a significant role in persuading the KNU leaders to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with the SPDC, while Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Foreign Minister Surakiart Sathirathai have worked directly with their Burmese counterparts to organize the international forum in Bangkok, attended by ten "like-minded" countries including Australia, Japan and China. Despite initial concern for international criticism, Burmese Foreign Minister Win Aung attended the meeting and explained vaguely how the SPDC intends to implement its seven-point "road map" for democracy, pledging to resume the National Convention that should eventually lead to the drafting of a national constitution. In addition to the involvement of Thai military in the KNU's negotiation, Win Aung's presence at the Bangkok forum on December 15 could be seen as a recognition by the Thai, the KNU and the SPDC for the need to find some solution to Burma's political problems though regional efforts. In a sense, Burma's political transition at least has been regionalized, if not totally internationalized.

As stated before, the move initiated by KNU's Vice Chairman may have caught many in the opposition movement by surprise, particularly because it was Gen. Saw Bo Mya who initiated the efforts. However, the move should not have caught anyone by surprise if, in fact, it is understood that we have all along been seeking a way to resurrect the national dialogue to break the political deadlock that has caused so much pain and irreparable damage in our country. We cannot afford to just talk glibly about negotiation and reconciliation but, rather, we will have to take risks - many of which involve unforeseeable outcomes - such as misunderstandings and harsh criticisms from our own friends and allies. Alliance politics may have deterred us from taking actions or positions that we as individuals support, but Gen. Saw Bo Mya's almost solo initiative has undeniably and progressively led us to think differently and, perhaps, to look at the situation from a more pragmatic angle. Should there be any doubts about and bitterness toward the SPDC because of past deeds or ongoing incidents in some places in our country, the Karen could and would register their doubt and bitterness before anyone else. But the Karen resistance movement, of which Gen. Saw Bo Mya has been a part as one of the most outstanding leaders, has a much higher goal than to express doubts and to feel bitter toward our historic oppressors. The 55 years of armed conflict has been ruthless and costly, but we are willing to make any necessary sacrifice for our desired national reconciliation, peace and freedom.

It appears now that the KNU may be willing to give the SPDC the benefit of the doubt. At the very least, we should recognize that the SPDC, in effect acknowledges, along with its "10-like-minded governments" that: (1) it is increasingly being held to account by the regional and international community, and is consequently feeling enough pressure to come out and offer its rendition of a peace process; (2) if and when the National Convention and the KNU's participation occur, the NC needs to be monitored regionally, internationally and by the media.

Nonetheless, there is no guarantee of success in the efforts put forth by the KNU. As we have argued before, "the Karen and other democratic forces have to confront the realities and continue to struggle with the understanding that politics by nature is dynamic and fluid, and it at times requires our ability to know when and how to (nor not to) strike strategic deals with our opponents." For the record, KNU has already reportedly acknowledged its doubts that a National Convention would lead to any type of peaceful and legitimate settlement in Burma without the participation of the largest popular party, the NLD and its leadership. On the other hand, from our internal unconfirmed but reliable source, we have learned that the NLD could be also constrained to make its own strategic move inside and join the NC. We, together with the organizations we work with, can try to create a political atmosphere conducive to that move from outside. It is not the primary concern of the KNU to predict how the NLD will respond to the first step of Khin Nyunt's proposed seven-point road map. But if both the NLD and KNU are at the same table, together with other cease-fire groups and the SPDC, wouldn't that NC amount to a more credible national dialogue?

Last but not least, any criticism regarding the KNU's current tactics could more appropriately focus on questions such as 'how is the KNU prepared strategically?' and 'how can we as allies prepare to bring forth positive change by working hand in hand with the KNU?' Criticizing the KNU over alliance politics and imagining a division between the KNU and Gen. Saw Bo Mya are politically counterproductive and certainly would not support the strategy of those in the pro-democracy movement. There are no persons chosen or groups anointed to bring about change in Burma. Change must be effected through the efforts of every citizen. But certainly an organization that has been engaging in these efforts for over fifty years will strive to realize its goal by any means necessary. As principled democrats, we are prepared to work or support anyone who can set Burma on the course of democratic transition, the ultimate goal of our struggle.

NOTES: Opinions expressed herein are entirely of the authors; the authors do not intend to set forth any official policy of KNU.

Karenissues Discussion Forum

2005-06-15T10:05:00.000-07:00

Karenissues Discussion Forum: A Mere Communal Space or a Forum of Intellectual Exchange?

by -- Saw Kapi

It has been months since the moderator team has released the guidelines for Karenissues Discussion. No sooner have we introduced the guidelines, the whole forum has then come to almost a total halt and everyone stopped discussing everything. The moderator team is compelled to wonder what went wrong with their guidelines that people must completely cease to talk about issues of their concerns. But before we jump to any conclusion, whether the moderators put a stop to discussion by providing a set of guidelines or not, it might be worthwhile sharing you a few thoughts that I have in mind.

A close colleague of mine recently made some valuable yet critical remarks on how the people of Burma who are now in exile, wittingly and unwittingly, use internet to express their concerns, vent their emotions, and exchange their historical knowledge, both first-hand experiences and learned. He said many us use "Internet as a therapy where our individually felt concerns are communally shared, pains lessened, frustrations understood, experiences and grievances validated, moral support offered and visions altered or corrected - for the better generally - all by our fellow citizens from all walks of life." In fact, some of us even found the right moments to publicly register our displeasure and anger on Karenissues and the bulletin board of Karen website (BBS on Karen.org), although the benefit or effectiveness of such action I find hard to gauge.

Naturally, those of us who have suffered so tremendously under the repressive military regime can sometimes be very emotional in expressing our opinions. For those whose villages were forcefully relocated, houses burned, relatives jailed, sisters raped, brothers killed by the soldiers of ruthless military dictators, almost any kind of emotional expression seems justified, because the pains and grievances they suffer cannot be fully understood by others, who do not have the same experience, but only by themselves. With them, I share my utmost empathy.And yet we at the Karenissues discussion forum would like to set our aim above and beyond accommodating emotional venting. Sure, we do not just want, or cannot possibly create a community of like-minded people, nonetheless we want to rise above our own emotions and prove to ourselves that we are capable of engaging in public discussions on this pretty much unregulated space called Internet.

So, it is indeed appropriate to have some guidelines in place for this forum, and the guidelines are not meant to be regulatory; they are meant simply to guide us and give us some parameters so that we can have a free yet responsible discussion with a sense of directionality. In other words, we are responsible for what we say and the discussion must lead us somewhere, preferably to a positive end. On-line discussion forum, by its very nature, is a communal space, where we all can rightfully release our emotions and frustration, and yet the guidelines are there to push us one level up where we can have a responsible intellectual exchange.

Whether we would like to continue as a mere communal space or embrace a more productive forum is a decision we all have to make for ourselves. Some of you may choose to say nothing and be completely silent. I, however, encourage you all to make use of this forum and discuss issues of your concern with deep passion and responsibility, and I hope that you do so not only to satisfy your emotional thirst but also to open your mind and learn from others with different experience and knowledge.

----

Ethnicity and Federalism

2005-05-13T16:53:00.000-07:00

Ethnicity and Federalism: A Case for Burma

By -- Saw Kapi and Naw May Oo

Burma, one of the many multi-ethnic countries of the Third World, is faced with two fundamental political problems that have kept her away from lasting peace and prosperity. The first one is the lacking of democratic governance in the country. The second and more deeply-rooted one is half-a-century long civil guerrilla war between diverse ethnic armed resistance groups and the central government. This paper will briefly discuss the issue of ethnicity and fundamental need for a genuine national reconciliation in our country. One very essential question Burma needs to answer is quite simple: what kind of system is needed to be in place in order to accommodate ethnic diversity and maintain unity and freedom at the same time?

An impartial understanding of Burma's ethnic politics is essential for those of us who are striving for the country's successful transition to a peaceful and democratic society. As such we all would agree that a great extent of political sensitivity is required in order to make impartial analysis and understand the political problems of Burma. Being merely sympathetic to the suffering of ethnic people under the current military regime is by no means enough. While the ethnic resistance movements may be viewed by some as an unrestrained monster that has often devastated many promising plans for change, built on sophisticated economic models, the ethnic people themselves consider their movements paramount important for their very own survival. We will be so wrong to assume that the reality of ethnic and their cultural diversities would in due course be assimilated or eliminated in the process of developmental change. As Ralph R. Premdas points out: "The evidence against this de-emphasis of the ethno-cultural factor by the different ideologies is devastating. From Lebanon in the Middle East to Guyana on the South American continent, from Northern Ireland to Azerbaijan in Europe to Quebec in North America, from the Sudan and South Africa to Sri Lanka and Malaysia, the assertion of the ethnic factor has made shambles of development objectives and social peace everywhere, on all continents, in both underdeveloped and industrialized societies."

Therefore, any strategy for development, both in politics and economic, regardless of ideological foundation it is based on, must acknowledge and incorporate the reality of cultural pluralism and ethnic diversity in the country. In light of this reality, federalism has become a very important state organization system that can make the best possible accommodation and incorporation of ethnic diversity into the country's political development. In the meantime, experience shows that the only federations which have failed are those which had socialist or communist state systems. Thus, what Burma need is to have democratic principles as the basis foundation of political system, and federalism as the basic foundation of state organization.

To briefly look at the origin of the word federalism, it is found that the word came into English via French from Latin. Foederatus means "bound by treaty" deriving from foedus: treaty and fidere: to trust."1 The earliest recorded use of the word is said to be found in 17th century puritans, a religious community who spoke of "federal theology" meaning a covenant between God and human beings. But by early 18th century, the word had evolved to include agreements between separate political communities of a heterogeneous people.

Throughout history, we can see that different countries in the world have employed federalism at various levels in terms of agreement between states, and power relationship between states and central government. And each form of federalism has a different history and socio-political diversity. India, for example, has employed a sort of centralized federalism in which the federal government has significant constitutional power, has been employed with a certain success, and it has also maintained considerable level of democratic principles, freedom and stability. The United States and Switzerland, although they are different in many specific mechanisms, have a similar scheme of very decentralized federalism. History has proved that different types of federal systems have efficiently accommodated a number of multi-ethnic societies with different social and political backgrounds, except for the currently defunct Yugoslav and Russian forms of federalism which had been operated within a political system of total rule by one party. So let us briefly look into the sustainability of federalism for our country, Burma.

First, federalism can facilitate the demand of "self-determination"2 made by ethnic nationalities. In other words, federalism can reconcile the legitimate impulse of Burma to preserve her territorial integrity and national unity, with the legitimate rights of ethnic nationalities to preserve their culture, human dignity and political autonomy. In this sense, federalism not only allows the existence of cultural pluralism, but also gives the minorities to preserve and develop themselves politically as well as economically. Moreover, federalism, depending on the level of decentralization, can protect the affairs and decisions of ethnic nationalities, in their organization and forms of representation, or in the strategies they adopt to prevent resources from being exploited unilaterally by the central government. In short, federalism encourages peaceful coexistence of diverse ethnic nationalities with equality and freedom.

We have seen in the history of Burma that ambitious attempts made by successive Burman-dominated governments and military regimes to unite the country by forcibly assimilating smaller ethnic nationalities into the melting pot of Burman [or Burmese] have painfully resulted in the half-a-century long civil war. Meanwhile, ethnic nationalities have both repeatedly and collectively proposed to form a genuine federal union in which both Burman and non-Burman ethnic nationalities can peacefully co-exist as equal partners.3 Of course, federalism must be developed in response to the ancient question of how to unite different ethnic nationalities together in order to effectively pursue objectives unobtainable otherwise, but without submerging any of their own identities. Within the framework of federalism, the new relationship between ethnic nationalities and the central government will be created on the basis of recognition of their rights to self-determination and of the legal, political, social, economic, and cultural rights derived therefrom.

Secondly, while the supremacy of the national government over the federal units is recognized, in federalism the degree of shared responsibility for, and power over, public policy is clearly distinguished. Thus, federalism can incorporate the condition of multi-ethnicity in any explication of the development idea for the country as a whole. It is important to note here that for a multi-ethnic country like Burma, most federal units may be ethnically defined units. Looking at the examples of other multi-ethnic states, we can clearly see that "policies which win legitimacy and stand a chance of implementation must engage and incorporate divergent communal claims."4

By maintaining clearly distinguished power over public policy, it will be possible for each federal unit of ethnic nationalities to undertake educational and development policies within their own cultural spheres. Through education it will be possible to ensure the use and development of ethnic national languages, while recognizing their cultural heritage. For example, having control over educational policies within their own states, each federal unit (or ethnic nationality state) can develop school curriculums in their own language reflecting their cultural essence and teach it at the state schools. It is important, however, that this emphasis on ethnic national language and culture in each federal unit or state should not overshadow or supercede the teaching of the main national language, that is, Burmese; nor the study of, and fluency in, one or more internationally used languages, e.g., English, French, Chinese, etc., should be neglected.

It is indeed imperative now that Burma, a country that has been ripped by ethnic conflicts for more than fifty years, adopts federalism as a pragmatic instrument to attain genuine unity among the Burman majority and diverse ethnic nationalities. That is by no mean to say that the relationship between the central government and ethnic nationality states (federal units) will be smooth. The dual nature of federal government will always create debates over policies that it pursues; however, such debates are necessary as to check and balance the power exercised by the central government, and are crucial in preventing armed conflicts between states and central government.

In conclusion, it must be stressed that there can be no peace nor stability in a multi-ethnic country unless ethnic problems are unequivocally addressed. The issues of democracy and human rights can be addressed at the level of protection of the rights of the individual citizen, but they must also be safeguarded by recognizing the rights of ethnic nationalities. To this end, federalism, with its dualistic character of sophisticated balance between central and state authorities, seems to be the most suitable framework yet developed for structuring mutually respected relations in the ethnically diverse society of Burma.

This is a slightly revised version of discussion paper presented by Naw May Oo at the 51st Annual Meeting of Association for Asian Studies, March 11-14, 1999, in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Notes:

1 Stephen Woodard, "The Simple Guide to the Federal Idea." From Ventotene, Federalism and Politics, The Ventotene Papers of the Altiero Spinelli Institute for Federalist Studies, Ventotene, 1995.

2 The term, "self-determination," is oftentimes defined differently by different scholars. Here we chose to use the "softer" notion of self-determination as presented by Asbjorn Eide. The term, "self-determination," should not be seen here as an absolute term but more as "intermediate option" which allows ethnic nationalities to have greater control over their own political, social and economic destiny.

3 Both the National Democratic Front (NDF), an umbrella organization of ethnic resistance groups, and the Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB), a larger alliance organization of both Burman and non-Burman democratic opposition forces, have clearly stated their position on the "establishment of a genuine federal union of Burma based on democracy, equality and self-determination."

4 Ralph R. Premdas, "Ethnicity and Development: The Case of Fiji," United Nations Research Institute for Social Development discussion paper No. 46, October 1993.