Karen Reunioin 2007 in KL, Malaysia

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 Read more...

Karen Reunion in Malaysia

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! Read more...

Introduction

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." Read more...

A moment of profound grief

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 Read more...

Remember and Rethink

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. Read more...

The Need for a Paradigm Shift - A repost

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. Read more...

Introduction: P'doh Kweh Htoo

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. Read more...

Question of the Day

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. Read more...

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

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. Read more...

On Culture, Identity and National Survival: Discussion Continued

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. Read more...

On Culture, Identity and National Survival: A Discussion

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. Read more...

On Culture, Identity and National Survival: A Response

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. Read more...

One Culture, Identity and National Survival

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 Read more...

Rethinking the Four Principles

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.”) Read more...

National Reconciliation in Burma?

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. Read more...

HIGHLIGHTS: Karen Reunion 2007 to be held in Malaysia

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 Read more...

Announcement: Going Home Where We Belong

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. Read more...

Karen Destiny

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. Read more...

Toward a well-meaning national consciousness - Abridged

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. Read more...

New Year, New Songs

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.

Read more...

A Symbol of Karen Resistance

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. Read more...

Karen New Year

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. Read more...

The Karen People of Burma

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. Read more...