[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Traveling Seminar by Dr. Vum Son.



/* Written  8:56 am  Jun 17, 1994 by dmcmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:soc.cult.burma */
/* ---------- "Traveling Seminar by Dr. Vum Son." ---------- */
                 National Democratic Front (NDF)
                       Travelling Seminar
                                             Reported by 
                                             Vum Son
                                                       

The Europaeische Burmanische Gesellschaft, Hamburg, Germany,
initiated a travelling seminar for members of the National
Democratic Front of Burma in line with the United Nations
International Year for Indigenous People.  Initially a
representative of each of the Karen, Mon, Kachin, Arakan, Shan,
Karenni, and Chin were invited to travel throughout Europe to
hold meetings and public seminars with Non-Governmental
Organizations, and Government Offices. However, only three
delegates managed to travel to Europe.  They were as follows:

Nai Pe Thein Zar:   Secretary of Foreign Affairs of NDF,
                    Central Committee member, New Mon State
                    Party
Khaing Saw Htun:    Central Committee member, Arakan Liberation
                    Party (Eastern Region),
                    Central Committee member, Democratic Alliance
                    of Burma
Dr. Vum Son:        Representative, Chin National Front   

The travels began in Hamburg, Germany, as guests of the European
Burma Association, Chairman Hans-Bernd Zoellner, and Vice-
Chairman Pu Kipp Kho Lian.  The seminar began with presentations
by Nai Pe Thein Zar on the NDF and federalism, followed by Vum
Son on the relations between the ethnic Burman and other
nationalities,  and Khaing Saw Htun's "SLORC's Human Rights
Violations and Destruction of the Environment."   The seminar was
attended by thirty people, focusing on how the delegation saw the
future of Burma.  Hans-Bernd Zoellner and Kipp Kho Lian hosted
the delegates during their stay in Hamburg.


After three days in Hamburg, the delegation proceeded to Muenster
as guests of the Burma Circle.  Horst Reiter, Chairman, and Dolly
looked after the delegates during their stay in Muenster. The
delegates visited an exhibition of indigenous cultures (including
Burma's) by the Amnesty International at the Catholic center
(September 26), where a seminar was also held at the University
the next evening (September 27).
 
On September 28, the delegation travelled to Bonn as guests of
the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Dr. Ruediger Sielaff, head of
department for Asia and the Pacific, Division for International
Cooperation, looked after the delegation. The delegation was
lucky to be able to meet members of the Bundestag including Dr.
Klaus Kuebler, Dr. Dietrich Mahlo and the assistant to Friedrich
Vogel (September 29). On September 30, the delegation met with
Frau Alles, Burma Desk Officer of the Foreign Office.  Nai Pe
Thein Zar survived without solid food for three days because of a
bad toothache.  On the fourth, he finally agreed to relinquish
his wisdom tooth, making a piece of him a permanent German
citizenship.  Harn Yawnghwe joined us for a day but he left for
England the next day.
The delegation was also guest of U Nwe Aung and U Zaw Lwin, well
known democratic leaders who (CRDB, NCGUB, etc.) oppose the SLORC
for lunch and dinner.

On Oct 3, U Nwe Aung drove the delegation from Bonn to Amsterdam,
where Pietje of the Burma Centrum, the host of the delegation in
Holland, met them at the Amsterdam Railway station.  Pietje,
Irene, Pauline, and Minka of the Burma Centrum guided the
delegation during their stay in Holland. The delegation visited
the headquarters of the UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organization) in The Hague. On October 4, 1993, there are 36
members, among them being the Karenni from Burma, and 25
applications for membership. Four founding members have so far
achieved independence: Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, and Latvia.
UNPO is in daily contact with the UN in New York.

On the same day, the delegation visited the Dutch Foreign
Ministry and met Mr. Peter Potman, Asia Desk Officer, Political
Department, and Hans Poley, Planning Section, Development
Cooperation and officers of the Human Rights policy units. 

On October 5, the delegation had lunch with professors of the
Asia Department of Amsterdam University and attended a lecture on
the "Contemporary Caste System in India." In the evening they met
the sponsors of the Burma Centrum, among them Wiert Wiertsema,
Policy Coordinator of Both Ends, Frank Hanraath, Free Lance fact
finding consultant, Marie-Jose Vervest, Coordinator Asia 
Section, Baja van Ofer, Director, and Ilonka Samir of Doen
Foundation.

The delegation gave interviews to reporters Marianne Boissevain
of the "de Volksfront," Esther Bootsma of the daily "Trouw," and
Carl Josephs of the Radio Nederland. Nai Pe Thein Zar made an
appearance in a children T.V. program. Our heartfelt thanks go to
Mr. and Mrs. Wiersema for giving us a Dutch dinner at their home
and to Pietje and Irene for spending their own money to help us. 
Pauline and Minka sent us off to Amsterdam airport on our way to
London where we were to be the guests of the Burma Action Group.
Julia Champtaloup, Sarah Sutcliffe, and Ma Thanda arranged the
schedules and accompanied us to the meetings, seminars, and other
necessary engagements such as acquiring Visas.  U Aung Naing, a
student leader who co-led the demonstrations in Rangoon in 1988
put up with us and  endured all he could.

Our first appointment in London on October 8, was with the
Foreign and Common Wealth Office where we met Gavin Hewitt, Head
of South East Asia Department, Sarah Foulds of the Human Rights
Policy Unit, and Clara Studham, the Burma desk officer. 

We then attended the meeting of the NGOs.  The meeting was
chaired by Ed McGovern. Sarah Foulds explained the procedure of 
the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Last year  the wording
of the condemnation of the SLORC for its human rights abuses was
mild; there was no ultimatum.  We must try to use stronger
language in condemning the SLORC.
    
The Britain Burma Association dinner was held in the evening.
Because the SLORC Ambassador Hla Maung was said to be attending,
I, alone attended the party. I discussed the first section of the
National Convention resolution with Hla Maung. I wanted to know
why on the one hand it says that the political system was
supposed to be a multiparty democratic system, but on the other
hand, it says that the military is to play a leading role in the
affairs of state.  The SLORC Ambassador replied that they cannot
give full democracy immediately.

The SLORC ambassador was asked to present Burmese students who
studied in the UK on scholarship from the regime. While, there
were only three Burmese students on SLORC scholarship in Britain,
the ambassador produced ten or so students who studied by their
own means in Britain as students on SLORC scholarship. While the
SLORC Ambassador was lying to the crowd, several Burmese wore
Aung San Suu Kyi masks, an obvious shock for the SLORC
sympathizers.

Next, we attended the meeting of the ARIP (The Rights of
Indigenous People).  There we met representatives of indigenous
people of India, Chakma from Bangladesh and Tamil from Ceylon.
There was also a presentation on the condition of the people
threatened by the destruction of the rainforest in the Amazon of
Brazil.

We were given the opportunity to watch the live broadcast of the
BBC Burmese program and met the officers of the BBC.  We also had
the chance to give interviews with U Aung Myint Tun and Larry
Jankins.

We spent a day in Oxford visiting the Refugee Study Fellowship
program of the Oxford University. They welcomed us as the source
of refugees. We presented them with our refugee programs in the
Mon areas. Currently, they have a one-month or one-year refugee
study programs.  The one-year study gives a master degree. We
gave a lengthy interview to James Smith, of "The Oxford Student"
and hope he made use of it.  We thank Anne of Burma Action Group
for her excellent tour of the Oxford University.
 
We were invited for dinner by Burmese expatriates almost every
evening such as Dr. Shwe Tun Kyaw and his wife Dr. San Win, U
Bala Zeya and family, U Win Soe and wife, U Nyunt Aung, his wife
and brother-in-law at the residence of the Sayadaw,  U Aung Myint
Tun, U Ne Win and Dr. Aung Kin, U Khin Maung Kyi, Bo Aung Din, U
Kardon, and U Than Lwin Tun.  We thank the Sayadaw for his gifts.

On October 18, we flew to Geneva as guests of the Association
Suisse - Birmanie. Mathias Huber, General Secretare, Claude
Schauli, Vice President, and Pierre Porret attended to our needs
and guided us to meetings and appointments. On October 19 we met
Adrian Claude, director, International Service for Human Rights,
Rene Wadlow of International Fellowship of Reconciliation, and
representatives of Amnesty International, and other NGOs.  We
were told to concentrate our efforts on the UN Commission for
Human Rights, without which we will succumb to SLORC's maneuver.
SLORC is building a wall around itself by the sham national
convention, the cease-fire negotiation with the Kachin
Independent Army, and by releasing a few non-threatening
political prisoners along with petty criminals whom the SLORC
announced as political prisoners.  Unless we expose these window-
dressing maneuver to members of the UN Human Rights Commission
there is every danger that we loose our ground.

Next, we met with Larissa Gabriel and John Parker of the UN
Center for Human Rights, who will accompany the UN Human Rights
Special Rapporteur to Burma, and who will write the Special
Rapporteur's report.  Unfortunately we cannot produce any recent
lists of political prisoners or human rights abuses by the SLORC. 
We suggested that they insist on talking to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
and other political prisoners.  We sent a fax to Bangkok to
prepare them for the Special Rapporteur's trip to the border
towns.

We were invited to a seminar organized by the Amis du centre
Asiatique and the Association Suisse-Birmanie, where we presented
short accounts of our interests. Many of the people were well
informed on Burma. Each of us received a gift: La Civilta Dei
Samurai, a beautiful book from the president of the Center. 

On October 20, we travelled to Berne by train and met Frau
Christine Schraner, Department of Swiss Federal Foreign Affairs,
Xersin Olivier, Political Division, M.-B. Antonelli, Deputy
Coordinator for Refugee Policy, Konrad Specker, Swiss Development
Corporation, Section Asia II,  and Jurg Lauber of the Swiss
Embassy in Bangkok.   The conversation was centered on the Swiss-
made Pilatus Airplanes C6, C7, and C9.  The Swiss parliament
suspended the sale of the airplanes to Burma, although the
conservative party insisted that the planes were made for
training purposes only.   We argued that they have been
effectively used with mounted guns against the Manerplaw
headquarters of the democratic forces.  The Swiss parliament was
debating whether to sell the parts ordered by the SLORC via
Singapore.  The parts were metal plates of the Pilatus body. 
During the Manerplaw offensive, anti-aircraft rockets were fired
at the Pilatus airplanes and obviously had destroyed the body of
the airplane.  We urged the officers to help us by stopping the
sale of the spare parts.

We also asked whether anything had been undertaken at the Swiss
Development Cooperation.  Mr. Speckter replied that everything
was stalled. Concerning refugee policy, Mr. Antonelli said that
there had been two Burmese political asylum seekers, but one
disappeared before his application was considered.

We met other people interested in Burma at lunch when we answered
questions on Burma's situation.  In the afternoon, we gave a
press conference, where we once again emphasized the Pilatus
aircraft issue.  We also pointed out that the Swiss are profiting
from the tragedy in Burma.  Burma's best rubies, sapphires, and
jade came to Switzerland directly through Ne Win or through his
friend Boris Salzman. In a bank treasury in Geneva are kept
Burma's assets for sale to international jewelers.   The
residence of Boris Salzman at Chemin du Velour 11 (Quartier de
Champel) in Geneva is guarded by dogs.  In the compound is a
Buddhist temple which was originally built in Burma, unassembled,
transported to Geneva and reassembled.  Buddhist figures surround
the temple. This is the property of Burma.  Boris Salzman heads
two firms: the SUMARAI and KARAWEIK.  He is believed to be
involved in the arms trade.  Without court proceedings we will
never know what other kinds of Burma's asset lie in Switzerland. 
Ne Win must enjoy the richness of his Swiss account.  Omar
Sheriff, the well-known Hollywood actor, gambled with huge sums
of money at the horse races.  He was once asked whether he was
the biggest gambler at the horse races. He replied that there was
one person who gambled more than him, and his name was Ne Win.    
       
Professor Thomas Feiner-Gerster, Director of Institute for
Federalism, University of Friborg, gave us a presentation  on
Swiss Federalism ("Legal Instruments and Procedures to Prevent
and Solve Ethnic Conflicts").  It was very interesting to learn
that, through a political concept, the Swiss are able to accept
equal rights for all three different language speaking peoples,
despite the fact that German is spoken by 65 to 70 percent of the
population, and no "nation" claims any priority with regard to
its constitutional status.  Also, the effective application of
the concensus-principle (vs. majority-principle) by the division
of the Swiss nation into 26 states, or cantons, and by
secularization of the federal state was discussed. This is
supported by the concept of decentralization.  The Swiss enjoy
multi-citizenship which give them the same rights in each canton
regardless of an individual's primary origin.            

We were very lucky to visit the large-scale physics experiment
named "the super collider" from which scientists believe to be
able to reconstruct the universe's beginning. If some terrible
people had not taken over in Burma, we might have had some
scientific advancement; now Burma has become exceedingly
primitive and backward.

We next met with Mrs Elisabeth Knecht, head of South Asia desk
for the International Committee of the Red Cross.  Although the
SLORC signed the Geneva Convention, the International Red Cross
still cannot go to the troubled areas of Burma unless the SLORC
gives its direct invitation or approval.  The concern for the
wounded civilians reflects well the attitude of the SLORC.

The Parti Socialiste Genovois (The Socialist Party of Geneva)
invited us to a discussion. Elizabeth Reusse, member of Geneva
Parliament, and Bernerd Siegler, Minister for Justice and Police
were also present. They were interested in helping us but found
it difficult.  For example, in the case of Pilatus Aircraft we
needed to have evidence such as pictures to show that the
aircrafts are being used as fighters.  Without such evidence,
convincing the people not to export its products is extremely
difficult, especially when those products provide many jobs. 
Especially interesting in meeting these people is that they
really have control over what is happening in their own canton
without much influence from the Federal Government in Berne. 
This structure is what the NDF is fighting for.

Also, Mr. Bernard Genier, the journalist who spent 49 days in the
Wa areas very recently and who was the target of a man-hunt
carried out by the Burma Army gave us his assessment of the
situation in Burma. 

Claude Schauli and Pierre Perrot took us to the Geneva Airport,
and off we flew on to Paris on October 23, to be guests of the
Association France-Birmanie.  Mrs. Claude Guillon, Secretary
General and Daw Khin Way Thi, Treasurer picked us up at the
Airport and took us to the residence of U Khin Maung Win, where
we stayed for 5 days.  On October 24, we met free-lance
journalist M. Patrick Chesnet, who has visited the liberated area
many times.  Although he caught malaria and suffered terribly for
over a year, he has written many articles on Burma.  Mrs.
Patricia Porteleau showed us Paris tourist attractions in the
afternoon. We met the members of the French-Birmanie Association
at the home of their president, Stefan Collignon and ate a
Burmese buffet dinner.

October 25, we met Mr. Olivier Monange, General Secretary of the
International Federation of Human Rights.  He wanted to
concentrate on the Gas Pipeline Project that will be built
between the bay of Martaban and West Thailand because the French
oil company TOTAL will be the main player. We could give him only
the basic information that Mon refugee camps have been forced to
move, and there have been forced relocations of Mon and Karen
villages.  We could not supply the number of persons or villages
to be affected by the pipeline construction.  We promised him
with the information as soon as we were back to the border areas.

We had a meeting with Dr. Jean Herve Bradol, Program Officer of
Medicins Sans Frontieres which is trying to go into Burma but
faces obstacles from the SLORC.  They will work as before in the
refugee camps and will follow to new sites when forced to move.

We met with the president of the International Commission for the
Rights of Minorities and visited the photo exhibition of
minorities.  Karenni of Burma were included in the exhibition,
where Padaung women with rings of copper around their necks are
the special attraction. 

On October 26, we met with important french government officers
from the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs at
the office of M. Christian Lechervy of the Ministry of Defense. 
Mr. Lechervy had the impression that the democratic opposition is
getting weaker and weaker with two members of parliament being
murdered, the dialogue between the KIA and the SLORC, the
attitude of the Indian Government towards Burma, and the split in
the NCGUB.  We assured the officers that Peter Limbin was in New
York together with Dr. Sein Win and that the NCGUB did not split. 
The reply to other questions were similar to other answers given
elsewhere.

On the question of TOTAL's involvement in Burma, Mr. Lechervy
said that it was the private decision of TOTAL.  I argued that
the French government is receiving income tax from the profits of
TOTAL's operation in Burma and that it is therefore profiting
indirectly from the suffering of the people of Burma.  If the gas
were to be used in Burma, it might still at least have improved
the living condition of the people, but the gas is to be sold to
Thailand.  That means that the cash received will benefit only
the SLORC.  The petro dollar is going to enhance SLORC's policy
against the ethnic nationalities of Burma.  There will be more
suffering for all people in Burma and the brutal military
dictatorship will survive longer through the money flowing from
the sale of natural gas.
 
We spent a few minutes at the office of Action des Chretiens pour
L'abolition de la Tourture and exchanged information.  They
intend to review Burma's problems in their future publications,
as they have already done once before.

U Khin Mg Win had cooked for us several times, and we used his
apartment as our own. U Khin Mg Win, Madame Guillon, Madame
Portoleau, and U Sein Win took us to our appointments and guided
us in the train system.  We had delicious food at U Maung
Maung's, M. Stefan Collignon's, and Madame Porteleau's homes. 
Thanks to Madame Porteleau we saw many Paris tourist attractions
which made our visit to Paris unforgettable.  We gratefully thank
all the people who were so nice to us.  We spent a memorable
evening at the home and restaurant of Daisy and Elain, where we
were treated with the best of French-Chinese food and drinks. 
Mrs. Portoleau took us to her home, showing us beautiful French
architecture on the way.  After lunch at her home she drove us to
the airport,from where we proceeded to Cologne. 

We were met by Miss Sabine Hammer at the airport.  Once again we
had a full dinner at U Zaw Lwin's Thai restaurant.  We spent the
night at U Zaw Lwin's and U Nwe Aung's.  We were invited by the
Heinrich Boell Foundation where we gave basic information on our
movement and answered questions concerning Rohingja problems. 
After that, Fraeulein Hammer took us to a delicious Burmese lunch
at her house which her mother prepared.  Then it was off to
Berlin, where we were met and fed by U Ye Myint.

In Berlin we met the Burma Project.  They are currently seeking
solutions with the Myanmar Embassy in Berlin. We exchanged our
ideas on ethnicity, human rights and environmental questions, and
the future of NDF especially in the face of a prominent member's
turning towards the SLORC (Kachin National Front).  The next day
we had dinner at U Thet Tun's and had discussions with Dr. Mahlo,
member of the Bundestag.  Dr. Mahlo was of the opinion that Burma
should be open and favors investment in Burma because the
neighbors of Germany are also investing in Burma.     

So ended The National Democratic Front Travelling Seminar.  I was
often asked about the success of the trip. Personally, I do not
think that the purpose of the trip was to be a success or not. 
It was, instead, the first of its kind in the history of the
Union of Burma in which the nationalities presented their
concerns to the outside world.

My deep appreciation are due to the members of the European -
Burma association, Burma Circle, Friedrich Ebert stiftung, Burma
Centrum, Burma Action Group, Swiss-Burma association, French-
Burmese association, The Heinrich Boell stiftung, and the German-
Burma Group in Berlin.  These associations and foundations
provided the organizations and arrangements and most importantly
they financed the travel.  My flight to Europe was partly
financed by the Associates to Develop Democratic Burma.  I thank
all of them for making the Travelling Seminar possible.

The following are replies we gave to various inquiries.


What effect does KIA's dialogue with the SLORC have?

We know that the KIA has talked to the SLORC several times and
each time the KIA was deceived.  It will be the same this time.
It is sad for us to lose a member of NDF; however, our position
is not going to be weakened by the loss of the KIA for several
reasons:
 
1.  Other members of the NDF had already been fighting against
injustices practiced by Burmese politicians for 13 years when the
Kachin joined the nationalities movement.  We will continue
fighting without them.

2. Even if the SLORC and the KIA signed a cease-fire accord it
does not mean the Kachin are laying down their arms. This one
will be  similar to the Wa and SLORC cease-fire arrangement. It
is therefore necessary  for the Burma Army to pin down strong
army units in the Kachin areas without reducing their current
strength. The Burma Army is too clever to leave the Kachin
unguarded, so the Burma Army will be pinned down in the Kachin
area.

3. From the beginning, the Kachin have been more interested in
trade than anything else. They saw the Wa and Kokang dominate the
trade in Burma. The Kachin do not want to miss their chance. With
the cease-fire arrangement, the Kachin become an autonomous
region where the people can actually decide their own affairs,
and develop their own land according to their own wishes.  The
Burma Army will still be present in the Kachin area; however,
they have to coordinate their movements with the KIA. Actually,
this is what they have been fighting for the last thirty years.
They now have the opportunity to trade freely and will do so
until the Burma Army overpowers them and puts all the KIA leaders
to rest in peace.

4. We may be losing the KIA, but in the mean time, the Padaung,
Pa-O, and Palaung are joining the NDF with new political set ups. 
While we are losing the KIA, we are also gaining three new
members.

       
Why did Burmese politicians refuse to consider a federal system?

In 1947 there were few people among the nationalities (and no one
in the Chin Hills) who knew  about nation-building.  The most
educated Chin at that time had not finished his high school
education.  It was therefore easy for the writers of the
constitution to write what Burmese politicians wanted. Instead of
looking into long-term benefits, the writers sought their own
popularity with their contemporary politicians.  Today we are
used to the lies of the SLORC, a tradition they are keeping well.
Their motto on lying is: people remember a lie for only a week
and then forget it. And so it was in 1947; the reason behind the
politicians refusal to honor the Panglong agreement and their
refusal to make Burma a federal union is easy to understand: it
was due to greed.  The majority of Burma's natural resources, for
example the hardwood and teak forests that the SLORC have sold so
cheaply to logging companies in recent years, are in the land of
the nationalities of Shan, Karenni, Karen, and Mon.  SLORC also
sold out fishing concessions which belong dominantly to Mon and
Arakan waters, and the oil exploration concessions were partly in
the waters of the Mon.  Minerals such as gold, silver, platinum,
tin, tungsten, antimony, lead, and zinc, and precious stones such
as rubies, sapphires, and jade are found in the areas of the
nationalities. 

Burmese politicians of the AFPFL era, and Burmese generals of the
Ne Win era, were and are afraid of losing their easy access to
these natural resources if Burma becomes a federal union.  So
politicians of the AFPFL era refused to listen to the wishes of
the nationalities and refused them federalism. Similarly, the
generals of the Burma Army fooled the people by saying that
federalism means separation.  Ethnic Burmese politicians, whether
civilian or military, share a common greed. They want to use the
natural resources of the nationalities for the benefit of the
Burman. Therefore, they rather risk warfare than seek a solution,
because solution means sacrifices.  Instead, the Burma Army
chooses a slow process of ethnic cleaning.


The Gas Pipeline:

One of the main concerns, especially in France, was the planned
Gas Pipeline to be constructed from two gas fields, the Martaban
and Yetagun gasfields, to Thailand.  The gas pipeline will pass
through the areas of the Mon and the Karen.  Already villages
have been forced to relocate, and the Thai government has ordered
several refugee camps along the border areas to be affected by
the pipeline construction to move inside Burma, where they will
be exposed to the brutal SLORC Army.

The pipeline construction will also cause ecological destruction
and more human rights abuses because, surely, the oil companies
will give the contract to Burma's construction companies.  These
Burmese companies are owned by former army officers, and to save
the cost of labor they will employ forced labor similar to the
UNDP projects, in which chained labor gangs were employed in the
Shan State.

The French government is involved as owner of TOTAL. The American
oil company UNOCAL also became a part of the TOTAL making the
American taxpayer pay for the construction of the pipeline
indirectly.  Until UNOCAL makes a profit the company, they can
claim their operating expenses in Burma as a tax write-off.


The Rohingyas

We were often asked to explain the situation of the Rohingyas. 
The name "Rohingyas" was a name created during the late 1950s. 
Since that time, there has been a movement connected with the
Rohingyas.  But what actually happened was very typical of the
actions of the Burma Army under General Ne Win.  The Burma Army
made it its policy to treat the Muslim population (whose physical
appearances are closer to the Bengalese than to the Burman)
cruelly.  Cases of rape by Burma Army personnel and forced
portering were common wherever the Burma Army was in operation.
The Burma Army's explanation of these abuses was that the
Rohingyas were not real Burmese citizens and could be treated
thus.  However, among the refugees are people who fled to
Bangladesh in 1978 and have since been repatriated by Burma. 
Thus, it was not true that the Rohingyas were not Burmese
citizens.

The SLORC, which includes only ethnic Burman, regards themselves
as the representative of the Burman which is typical of the Burma
Army under Ne Win.  The SLORC is desperate to gain the favor of
the ethnic Burman.  The SLORC believes that if they inflict pain
on the non-Burman, they are pleasing to the ethnic Burman.  The
same brutality they have practiced towards the Mon, Karen, and
Kachin apply also to the Rohingyas. 


What is the NDF?  What is the relationship between the NDF, the
DAB, and the NCGUB?

Before the 18th century, Arakanese, Burman, Chin, Kachin, Karen,
Karenni, Kayang, Lahu, Mon, Palaung, Pa-O, Shan, and Wa developed
themselves into independent kingdoms or chieftains. During the
18th century, the kings of Burma became more aggressive than most
others and colonialized the Mon and the Arakan. The Shan enjoyed
independent status but gave tribute to the Burman king; the Chin,
Kachin, and Karenni were and remained independent feudal states.
They were under Burmese rule and were never a part of Burma.  

The British conquered the Burman in 1885.  Several years later
the above mentioned kingdoms and chieftains were pacified under
British rule after long and severe battles.  The British
administered the Burman, Arakan, and Mon directly; the Shan,
Chin, Kachin became loosely administered  states.  The Karenni
state remained independent.
 
After the end of the second World War the British prepared to
leave Burma.  General Aung San, the leader of the most popular
political party of the Burman, and Prime Minister Clements Atlee
signed the Atlee-Aung San agreement, which laid down conditions
for Burma's independence. Although British government decided to
give Burma its independence, they intended to leave the areas
surrounding Burma, which were called "frontier areas", under
British rule. However, the British expressed their willingness to
give independence to the frontier areas also if the frontier
people expressed any interest in joining Burma. Thereby, the
British gave General Aung San the permission to hold talks with
the frontier people. 

The British Governor in Rangoon then invited leaders of the
frontier people to Panglong, a small town in the Shan State, to
confer with Burmese leaders led by General Aung San.  Chiefs from
the Chin Hills, Kachin Duwas, and Shan Sawbwas met with General
Aung San and his staff in February of 1947.  While the others
hesitated, the Chin chiefs decided to join Burma.  As they were
not versed in nation-building and modern politics, they simply
said,"We want to join Burma but we want to decide our matters by
ourselves."  They agreed to join Burma while preserving their
autonomy and protecting their community interests. This statement
must be interpreted as a demand for federalism or a
confederation.  The representatives of the Kachin and Shan
expressed their wish to join Burma under one condition: there
must be equality, the right of self-determination, and the right
to secede from the union.  A consensus to form a union together
was reached and the Panglong agreement was signed. The agreement
guaranteed full autonomy in internal administration of the
frontier areas, full fundamental democratic rights and privileges
of the citizen of the frontier people, and initial financial
assistance with and financial autonomy as soon as it was
feasible.
 
The 1947 constitution drafted by Burman politicians clearly
betrayed the Panglong agreement.  The constitution, although
recognizing the need for federalism, did so in only in theory. 
In practice, the constitution is unitary. The nationalities
wanted a federal system of government where the power would be
divided between the union and autonomous state governments. 
However, Burmese politicians insisted on central control.   
Therefore, the majority Burman formed the central government and
denied power to the nationalities. This means that the ethnic
nationalities lost their right to self-determination and they had
to endure whatever the Burman wanted to do with them. The Burman,
who have the majority, therefore, ruled the country and the
nationalities had very little to say in their own affairs. The
demand for equal rights and self-determination by the
nationalities was ignored by Burmese politicians led by U Nu, U
Kyaw Nein, and U Ba Swe at independence and afterwards.  They did
not see the necessity of giving the nationalities their rights or
their fair share. In desperation the Arakanese, Karen, Karenni,
and  Mon took bases in their homelands and defended themselves
from Burmese domination, declaring themselves independent not
long after independence. 

After ten years of political union with the Burman, the
nationalities found themselves more and more dominated by the
Burman.  The administration is tightly in the hands of the Burman
because, as the majority population, they control the parliament.
In economic planning, the Burman gave themselves the lion share
of development projects. Kachin and Shan felt that they received
too little from the central government in development projects
compared to the amount they contributed to the union budget. In
the civil service, promotions were reserved for the Burman
without considering seniority or capability. In the military,
high ranking nationalities were sacked to be replaced by Burman
officers. No consideration was given to seniority or
qualification.  Ne Win was promoted to the post of Commanding
Officer of the Burma Army after the Karen Commanding Officer was
forced to resign. Government servants, or military officers from
ethnic nationalities who did not command the language of the
Burman, were classed as uneducated and incompetent.  

In areas of education, the Burmese language automatically became
the official language, and the existence of other languages were
denied in the universities and colleges. None of the professors
of the Burmese language spoke any of the nationality's languages.
Teaching of languages of nationalities in the schools even in the
states were limited.  The only that was taught was of the Burman;
the histories of the nationalities were ignored or modified to
suit Burmese thinking. Even before Buddhism was made the state
religion, the Buddhist religion played a major role in how the
school curriculum was run. Although Buddhism was imported from
India, other religions such as Christianity and Muslim were
generally propagated as foreign, and the observers of these
foreign religions as non-patriotic. Burmese culture was made the
official culture of the nation and the cultures of the
nationalities were treated with mockery. The dress of the Burman
was recognized to be the union dress.  For example, in Burma's
parliament, it was mandatory to wear Burmese longyi, htami,
jacket, and head dress (Kongbaung).  People looked at the dress
of the Naga and so on with scorn.  Most painful for the
nationalities was the derogatory treatment of their culture and
their non-Burmese accent by the Burman.  There was no attempt by
the Burman to understand the differences between the Burman and
the nationalities.

The three nationalities of the Shan, Chin, and Kachin did not
oppose the Burmese dominated central government during the first
ten years of independence. The Shan youth first voiced their
frustration with the condition in Burma.  Their frustration
deepened during the campaign against the Kuomintang.  The rape of
women, the burning of villages, and forced portering were common.
Ne Win even distributed pamphlets encouraging Burmese soldiers to
marry Shan women to dilute the Shan.  The Burma Army there after
promoted those men who married Shan women.  Many of them left
their wives and children when they transferred to new
assignments. Soldiers roamed Shan villages in search of young
women. The livestock of the villagers were used to improve the
rations of the soldiers. Complaints of the behavior of the Burma
Army to the defense ministry of the government of the Union of
Burma fell on deaf ears and brought no improvements. For Shan
youth, there was no other choice but to join other nationalities
and to fight for independence in 1960. The Kachin, angered by the
same factors that angered the Shan in combination with the
introduction of religion into politics and the making of Buddhism
as the state religion, soon followed suit.
 
Shan political leaders sought the improvement of the political
condition in Burma.  They held a conference with other
nationality politicians  in Taungyi in 1961 and proposed to amend
the 1947 constitution. The amendment of the constitution was not
realized because General Ne Win took over power.  If the
amendment of the constitution had been carried out, Burma would
have become a federal union and there would have been less power
for the military and that means Ne Win's ambition of controlling
the country would not have been realized.

It become necessary to coordinate and exchange ideas among the
ethnic nationalities who had armed opposition to the ethnic
Burmese who dominated the government.  The armed opposition
started during the civilian government and was carried on against
the military dictatorship because the military was even more
oppressive than the civilian government.  Therefore, they formed
the National Democratic Front in 1976 with nine members of the
Arakan Liberation Party, the Kachin Independence Organization,
the Karen National Union, the Karenni Progressive Party, the
Kayan New Land Party, the Lahu National Unity Party, the Pa-O
National Organization, the Palaung State Liberation Organization,
and the Shan State Progress Party.   

>From the beginning of their movements, the members of the NDF had
no other wish than to have equal rights and self-determination.
They believed in the political maturity of the ethnic Burman who
were also slowly becoming victims under the military
dictatorship. During the early 80s, the members of the NDF
decided it was time for national reconciliation. Their wish for
equality and self-determination could be realized through the
process of democracy and federalism.  Therefore, the NDF decided
to abandon their primary objective of gaining independence  in
1984 and vowed to stand together and fight for democracy and
federalism.

Burman organizations who opposed the Ne Win dictatorship could
not join the NDF because they did not have any liberated areas or
army.  After 1988 many ethnic Burmese groups, students, monks,
and expatriates joined the fight against the military
dictatorship.  As these groups were not eligible for membership
in the NDF, the Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB) was formed to
accommodate all forces who opposed the military dictatorship.
 
After the winners of the May 1990 election were not allowed to
form a government, several elected members of parliament fled to
the border areas. They were welcomed and looked after by the
nationalities, especially the Karen. The DAB helped these elected
members form the National Coalition Government of the Union of
Burma.


One of the often discussed topic was the National Convention.  we
gave the following description of the convention.    


The National Convention:
Burma's Constitutional Trickery

Since 1947 the ethnic have Burman held the political reigns. 
They have continuously used one trick or another to hold on to
their aloof position among the national races of Burma, using the
population imbalance to their advantage. The Panglong agreement
signed by the representatives of the Burman General Aung San and
the representatives of Chin, Kachin, and Shan in 1947 was 
clearly for a federal union (or rather a confederation). The
Chin, for example, simply said, "We want to join Burma but we
want to decide our matters by ourselves."  This statement can
only be interpreted as a quest for federalism.  Instead, they
were given the status of a "Special Division." 

The constitution of 1947 was drafted by Burmese lawyers; the
product gave the Burmese, as an ethnic majority, the central
control. The Panglong agreement was given a window-dressing in
which statehood was given to the other-than-Burman ethnic groups,
without equal rights and without the right of self-determination.
To make matters look acceptable to the non-Burman and to avoid
showing that it is was an outright trick, the right of secession
was incorporated. The writers of the constitution very well knew
that with central control, they would be in control by the time
the ten year grace period was over.  They had therefore built up
a Burma Army strong enough to put any ethnic group under control.
But, the Burma Army that they had built up to counter the
nationalities turned the tables on them; born was a monster that
the ethnic Burman had no means of control over.

When Ne Win took over power in 1962, he was determined to put all
fairness out of the way and once again give the Burman majority
the right to dominate Burma as in his 1974 constitution.  About
every twenty years, modern Burma writes a constitution. Once
civilians or the military held power, nothing mattered anymore,
they use all their energy to hold on to power.  They did not care
about long term stability and did not look into Burma's special
problems of ethnicity.  Their main objective was to legitimize
their power for their life times. In 1947, it was the AFPFL who
gave the ethnic Burman the priority, and in 1974 Ne Win bestowed
on himself the right to rule.  Today it is Ne Win and the SLORC
who want to legitimize their hold on to power.  The objective of
drafting a new constitution is to prolong their power and nothing
else. The constitution that they are planning to draft will have
to be replaced as soon as the military regime collapses.

In 1990 the State Law and Order Restoration Council was convinced
that their political party, the National Unity Party (NUP), would
win. Their polltakers had taken surveys among the people before
the election. The people had assured them that they fully agree
with the SLORC about the following:

1. Without the lead of the Burma Army, the nation would
disintegrate.

2. Any woman married to a foreigner such as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
could not be trusted to lead the nation, and that she had
connections with Communists

3. The National Unity Party would not demonetize the currency

4. Under the NUP there would be a free market economy

5. Under the NUP Burma would become a multi-party democracy

The people knew that they would be harassed unless they gave in
to the questions.  However, the use of intimidation and the
arrest of the leading politician Daw Aung San Suu Kyi did not
stop the people, among them the members of the military, from
voting against the military.  The SLORC was so confident about
winning the election that General Saw Maung promised to transfer
the power to the winning party.  The result of the election so
completely and thoroughly took the military by surprise that the
SLORC was numbed with shock.  They could not come up with any
explanation for almost a week after the result of the election
was announced.

Since 1988 the international community has been monitoring the 
political happenings in Burma.  Most of the funds the military
rulers had been enjoying for over 26 years came to an abrupt end
in response to: 

1. the killing of over ten thousand unarmed students and
civilians
2. gross human rights violations such as arresting people without
charge or trial, torture in jail, arbitrary killings, rape of
women in conflict areas, forced portering, and forced labor
3. the refusal to transfer the power to the winners of 1990
election
4. the arrests of the elected members of the National League for
Democracy

The SLORC is desperate for funds. They have sold out the hardwood
and teak forest, fishing concessions, and oil and gas exploration
concessions.  Within the last three years they have bought over
two billion dollars worth of arms and ammunition. They have
already spent the money they gained from selling out the natural
resources.  Their only source of income is now from illegal
drugs.  To be able to receive foreign aid they need to clean up
their act and become  acceptable to the international community.
They are dreaming of the resumption of the flow of funds from the
World Bank, UN Agencies, the Asian Development Bank, Japan, West
Germany, and the United States as during the time of the Burma
Socialist Program Party (BSPP).  Therefore, in order to fool the
international community, the SLORC announced the preparation of a
National Convention which was to discuss fundamental principles
and chapter headings to base a new constitution, which in turn
will allow the military to transfer power to an elected civilian
government.

>From the onset, the intention of the SLORC was clear. The SLORC
knows its illegal status; its intention was to legitimize itself.
It has no intention of transferring the power. Its game plan was
to gain time during which to court investors who would give cash
for SLORC's further survival. SLORC has explored every avenue to
appear credible to the international community.  It has offered
cease-fire arrangements with democratic forces of the
nationalities without discussing for long term political
solutions.

Until recently they denied having any political prisoners. Then
they suddenly announced the release of over 100 political
prisoners.  But, these prisoners were only older people like U Nu
who is over 80 years old, and common criminals who were no threat
to the SLORC.  After that, more politicians or suspected anti-
SLORC persons were arrested and today there are more political
prisoners than ever before.  SLORC's terminology  for criminals
and the outside world's terminology on political prisoners is
different. We all know that Brigadier Aung Kyi is a political
prisoner.  However, according to the SLORC he is a criminal
because he was charged and sent to jail because he was late with
his salt payment for his coffee shops. 

Before they the national convention was held, its result was
already determined.  It was held only to fool the international
community. The convention therefore needed to produce a
resolution which supports the miltary's remaining as the only
political factor in Burma with elected civilians taking orders
from the military.  Therefore they had to find delegates to the
convention who were loyal to them.

Thus, the SLORC carefully handpicked the delegates.  The National
Convention opened with 702 delegates. (This number was chosen to
match Ne Win's astrological number 7+0+2=9.)  Of these, only 120
were representatives elected during the May 1990 national
elections, and only 92 were from the National League for
Democracy out, of 392 elected members. SLORC disqualified 83
parties represented in the 1990 election.  Ten parties were
allowed to exist in order to present the illusion of a multi-
party democracy. Most of these 10 parties have aligned with the
National Unity Party, the political party of the SLORC.  The ten
parties sent five representatives to the convention.  The NLD
members were hand-picked because of their vulnerability to
pressure. Others were handpicked because they were likely be
easily persuaded.  They were supposed to be workers, peasants,
government servants, academics, intelligentsia, and from the
national races.  These delegates had leanings towards the
military because their livelihood was dependent on the military
in terms of pensions, or because their children were serving in
the armed forces.  The numbers were carefully planned so that
when it came to any vote, the SLORC could have easily influenced
atleast two thirds of the delegates.  They made certain that
whatever they had on the agenda would come out favorably for
them. 

How the SLORC hand-picked the delegates may be exemplified by U
Kyi Myint.  U Kyi Myint was a delegate from the sate of Wa.  He
was born in China and was a Mao's Red Guard during the cultural
revolution.  He came to the Wa area during the 70s to help the
Burma Communist Party. When the BCP collapsed, he stayed on in
the Wa area to mend the lucrative heroine trade.  He changed his
name and became one of the richest drug lords in the world and is
owner of over twenty heroine refineries.  The Burma Army cannot
directly involve itself in drug trafficking because they have to
protect their reputation.  It is therefore very important for the
SLORC to find men like U Kyi Myint.  They do him a favor by not
interfering with his trade, and U Kyi Myint gives the SLORC
protection money from the proceeds of the opium and heroin trade.
This arrangement is the reason why he was a delegate at the
National Convention.   

The Convention was convened on January 9, 1993.  The SLORC
outlined rules and regulations, among others, to establish a
participatory and leadership role for the armed forces in the
future national politics of Burma.  In the opening speech,
Convention Chairman Maj. Gen. Myo Myint stated that the future
constitution must ensure the creation of a multiparty system that
works hand-in-hand with the Defense Services. 
The delegates were supposed to follow the "Rules and Regulations
for the National Convention."  The SLORC had appointed a
committee of 45 members who would determine the duties of each of
the representatives.  Rules of discussion were laid down. The
rules also listed actions which could be taken against delegates
who broke the rules. In particular, they were not allowed to
criticize the military or to make statements which could be a
threat to "national security."

The establishment of a leadership role for the army was strongly
objected to by the delegates of the nationalities and members of
the NLD.  Because one or two delegates could not make it to the
Convention, the astrological number 9 could not be maintained so
the convention was adjourned until February.

The Convention reconvened during April, June, August, and
September.  Though the guidelines clearly outlined what the
topics of discussion should be, and what they can say and not
say, the delegates spoke out and protested the handling of the
convention. The Wa delegates had attended the National Convention
to demand  statehood for the Wa people. When this demand was
rejected, the Wa staged a walk-out. The SLORC pleaded with them
to stay in the convention. The members of the NLD of Burma proper
as well as NLD of the Shan and Karenni strongly objected to
SLORC's proposal for a presidential system.  For this protest,
the leaders of the NLD, Colonel Aung Shwe and Khun Tun Oo of Shan
NLD were warned that protest would have serious consequences.
Although they were not arrested for expressing their views yet,
Dr. Aung Khin sent was sentenced to a 20-year jail term for
writing leaflets obviously opposing the SLORC's positions on
constitutional issues.  His aid, U Than Min, was arrested for
distributing the leaflets and was sentenced to 31 years.  The
Convention was started with 702 delegates; but in September of
this year, the Convention was adjourned with only just over 600
delegates.  An unconfirmed report suggests that the convention
finished with 630 delegates to complete the astrological number 9
(6+3+0=9).  We do not know what happened to the other 70
delegates.  

In October U Ohn Kyaw, the SLORC Foreign Minister, announced in
his UN Assembly Address that the delegates for the National
Convention had agreed on the Burma Army's participation as a
leading role in the national politics of the country. In the
SLORC Information Fact Sheet it states,  "The State practices
genuine multiparty democracy system" and "the Tatmadaw (Defense
Service Men) will participate in Pyithaungsu Hluttaw( Nation's
Parliament), Region and State Hluttaws."  It also says, "The
Tatmadaw has the right to take the power in national crisis." 
Thus, it is clear that the Burma Army has no other intention than
to hold on to power by legitimizing itself with a constitution.

Burma will have the third constitution within its short modern
history of 45 years.  The founding of the Union was based on the
agreement at the Panglong conference.  None of the constitution
drafted under the direction of the ethnic Burman cannot unite the
peoples of Burma.  Suspicion, mistrust, and hatred will be the
outcome of the third Burmese constitution.  Luckily, this time
not only the ethnic nationalities but also ethnic Burman will be
hurt. Because the people who wrote the first constitution of 1947
were not sincere, civil war and dictatorship have resulted. The
second led Burma to economical bankruptcy and the Burmese to
moral destruction.  Life in Burma will never be fair so long as
special interest groups write the constitution to suit what they
want, rather than what the peoples of the union want.  

My personal Opinion of the Traveling Seminar

It was the first time that Burma's nationalities other than the
Burman brought their concerns to the outside world.

I was greatly impressed by the interest and dedication of the
seminar organizers and sponsors.  For example the Dutch, who has
no embassy in Burma and almost no trade with Burma, has opened
the Burma Centrum. In Burma Holland is known for its condensed
milk in Burma's good old days. The dutch interest in Burma is
completely altruistic; they had seen the oppression and suffering
of the people in Burma and they want to help.  In every country
we visited, our lodging food, and arrangements were provided by
volunteers whose concern and selflessness gives me hope in our
struggle.
I was disappointed in our inability to provide large-scale,
concrete data. Our claims of military abuses are generally
unsubstantiated without this data.  Most importantly, we should
have specific information as follows:

  1. a current record of political prisoners, including their
names, ages, reasons for imprisonment, official and political,
and the term sentence.  We should also have the lists of
prisoners that are published in the daily newspapers as well as a
list of prisoners who have been released.
  2. a record of generals, colonels, and other important officers
of the Burma Army. We should have detailed descriptions of their
exceptional deeds, both abusive and good, and their personal and
professional histories.
  3. a roster of the people who attended the slorc's national
convention, including personal and professional biographies.
  4. concrete numbers of people and villages effected by the
planned pipeline along the border and hydroelectric dams along
the Salween River.  Any protest of these projects must be
supported by strong evidence of the projects detriment.
  5. detailed information on the drug trade in Burma.  This
information should contain the tonnage of opium and heroin
produced and exported, the geographical areas where the drugs are
grown and the final destinations of the drugs.
  6. a list of names and biographies of the girls poisoned by the
Tatmadaw.  And we need the  list of girls being sold to Thai
brothels .
  
All of this information should be from first-hand reports. 
Currently, no events inside Burma are documented .  Instead we
depend on foreigner's second-hand( and, thereby, journalist's
third hand) information.  we need to have a reporter or news-
gatherer of Burmese or nationality origins who can report the
news to us first-hand. 

A third observation made about our movement was that it lacks
definition and cohesion.  Without these two factors, it is
extremely difficult to convince foreigners of the legitimacy and
competence of our actions.
The movement lacks definition in that it has no clearly written
document that defines itself.  For example, during our travels,
we encouraged European governments to sever ties with the SLORC
and to recognize the NCGUB.  However, I am not completely certain
that was the wish of the NCGUB. we simply assumed that was what
the NCGUB wanted.  In more general terms, it is not even clear
what the "Coalition" in National Coalition Government of the
Union of the Union of Burma represents.  It could certainly not
be a coalition of ethnicities because there is no participation
of ethnic groups who had been fighting the dictatorship for so
many years in the NCGUB.  Not only would a document or
guidelines, especially in the form of a constitution, help
foreigners and the people of Burma understand the NCGUB, it is
vital for the preservation of ideals.  Non Burman nationalities
in Burma are suspicious anything that is initiated by the ethnic
Burman and they are desperate for making Burma a federal union 
for which they have agreed to join with the Burman. For most non-
Burman the military government is the continuation of the
civilian government and unless and until there is genuine
commitment from a Burmese government that is genuinely
sympathetic to their cause there could be no unity. Not only
would a document or guidelines, especially in the form of a
constitution remains clear in purpose and goal.  It does not have
to be a long and complicated statement. It could be in the form 
of the Manerplaw or Panglong agreement.  Ironically, the SLORC
also does not work by a constitution.  The State Law and Order
restoration Council seems to enforce unwritten "laws" and
restores an unnamed "order".  It is completely unclear whose law
and order is being restored.  Witnessing the work of both the
SLORC and NCGUB, one cannot help but conclude that the Burmese
simply refuse to implement any written constitution to clearly
define themselves, despite the apparent advantages and even
necessity of the form of self-definition.  The reason for this
refusal could only be to allow leaders of the organizations to
continually change and redefine their goals, in line with their
own personal agendas.

Another factor influencing our effectiveness both abroad and in
Burma, is the lack of cohesion between the NCGUB  and the
nationalities. Because a written constitution does not exist, the
exiled government's stand on the nationalities can only be
guessed at.  Although, the formation of this government was only
possible through the nationalities liberated areas, they have no
influence on the activities of the NCGUB.
Foreigners have a great deal of trouble understanding the
ambiguous relationship between the NCGUB  and nationalities, with
good reason. There is not only a foreign minister for the NCGUB,
there is also a foreign spokesperson for the NDF and a foreign
spokesperson for the DAB. I strongly believe that if the NDF
delegation has a connection with the NCGUB, foreigners would
respect the union. In fact, we were asked about the relationship
between the NDF and the NCGUB. There were also people who thought
we were the opposition of the NCGUB. Some made comments on the
difference of our behavior and the Burman politicians they had
encountered.  Our cause is certainly not helped when cabinet
ministers indulge in behaviors such as chasing women and getting
drunk in public places.  In any case, although no one explicitly
verbalized the sentiment, foreigners understand that the NCGUB
and nationalities do not work hand- in- hand. 

Most importantly, the lack of cohesion has detrimentally affected
the movement within Burma.  As we very well know, the SLORC ( or
the military regime) can only be toppled by the effort of all
opposing forces combined. we must support the NGCUB.  Since its
inception, we have heard that the nationalities fighting the
SLORC want to be part of the exiled government but this union did
not take place.  We were told that the NCGUB did not want to be
an illegal organization.  Some thought that the inclusion of a
Chin-elected member in the NCGUB cabinet would quiet the
complaints of non-participation by the nationalities. 
Unfortunately, it is not simply the appointment of a particular
person to the cabinet minister position that satisfies the
people.  What DOES satisfy the people is a sincere political
process that considers the will and concerns of ALL the people
affected.  Only a document or constitution clearly outlining such
a process and guaranteeing its true political implementation will
be enough to satisfy all parties involved.

Sadly, the actions and programs of the NCGUB cannot be
interpreted as nationality friendly.  For example, the NCGUB has
been slow in response to the issues of the Rohingyas.  One
cabinet minister even called the Rohingyas not really Burma's
citizens. While it is important for the exile government to have
credibility among the Burmese, overzealous rallying for this
support at the expense of the nationalities will only serve to
create suspicion by portraying the NCGUB as the tool of the
nationalities.  This SLORC propaganda could well jeopardize the
relationship between the NCGUB and the nationalities.  It must be
remembered that the SLORC rose to power as the representatives of
the ethnic Burman by oppressing the nationalities.  They will
continue to use this tactic against the NCGUB to retain the
ethnic Burman support, and will use it to convert Burmans who
support democracy.  This falsity could seriously endanger the
democratic movement by turning it into a Burman-vs-nationality
issue. 

The civilian government of U Nu and U Ba Swe have excluded the
nationalities from functions that decides the matters of state.
In each case, the Burman have dominated in the decision making
and turn a deaf ear to the concerns of the nationalities.  In
this respect,  the NCGUB can learn some lessons from the past
Burmese governments and repair the damage done. ( I hope  my
point is given consideration). It must be remembered that the
nationalities first rose in arms specifically against Burman
domination.  Today, the nationalities are fighting the SLORC to
restore democracy. If the present trend continues in the NCGUB,
the nationalities may as well be fighting them one day.

Worst of all, the SLORC is using the loose or missing link
between the NCGUB and the nationalities to push a wedge between
the democratic forces.  If a federal government had existed to
include the nationalities and the Burman, the cease-fire dialogue
between the SLORC and the KIA would not have been possible.  The
nationalities and the Burman( students should have formed a
federal army, each nationality contributing a certain number of
soldiers to the combined army.  If Zau Mai had been an officer of
that army, it would not have been possible for him to talk to the
SLORC without the understanding of the federal chief executive,
because then there would be no separate entity in the army. 

However, past is past, and we must agree today on how to battle
the terrible nightmare that had befallen us. Only our joint
cooperation and effort will topple the regime and only our joint
cooperation can ensure a fair, democratic government after the
SLORC has been defeated.  Now is the golden opportunity for us to
examine our weaknesses, strengths, visions, and differences and
find a  formula for unity.