(no subject) (r)

[KNLcomm@xxxxxxx]

MAYKHA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
X-Sender: strider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Response from the Karen National League (KNL) to the Editorial titled
?Reflections at New Year 1999?, The View from the Embassy of Myanmar, Ottawa,
14 Feb 1999.

February 16, 1999

	There is little question that the above is nothing but a very misleading
?View?.  For a change it is nice to see that the ?View? acknowledges General
Aung San, whose name has been seldom, if at all, mentioned by the military
regime in these last few years, as a leader (actually ?the? leader) for the
struggle of Burma?s independence from Britain.  On the abridgment of a long
story about Aung San accepting the colonial name of Burma, before reviving the
ancient nation as ?Myanmar?, we can doubt that he had ever harbored the idea
of reverting to this historical name.  There are many ways to justify the
renaming of the country, the least relevant of which is the reasoning that
implies linking the name of Burma to the colonial ?divide and rule? strategy,
and invoking the word ?Myanmar? to signify unity or reunification.  We are not
saying that Myanmar is a bad name. But renaming country at this point is just
like whitewashing the sepulcher.  It will not materially change or improve
anything in Burma.  Even the two great countries in Asia, China and Japan, are
not known by their own vernacular names to the outside world, and yet they do
not seem to care at all.     

We should also be cautioned about the ?View?s statement of a group, officially
classified as top secret by the British, called ?Friends of the Hill Peoples
of Burma? with affiliation to some elements of the war-time conservative
government not only stage-managed the assassination of Aung San and his
colleagues but also for the Karen National Union to rise up in arms
immediately after independence for the creation of ?Karenistan" as conceived
by these so-called friends with ambition to retain their hold on the
resource-rich areas of the country.?  That the FHPB or FBHP (Friends of the
Burma Hill People) existed at one time has been known for many decades.  One
source that is to remain anonymous for the moment discloses that the BBC
(British Broadcasting Corp.) producers of the latest Aung San assassination
anniversary program maintained that the FBHP was formed in Feb 1947.  To
directly link the FBHP to the Aung San assassination, however, proved to be
extremely difficult.


	One has to be misguided to label Campbell, Tullock, Bingley and Vivian as
military luminaries since none of them was particularly notable in what he did
nor was he a source of intellectual or spiritual light.  Bingley was not even
in the military at the time he was involved in the investigation of the
assassination, and the nexus of he and Vivian could never have been
established conclusively.  

	About Tullock and others, Martin Smith (BURMA, Insurgency and the Politics of
Ethnicity, 1991, 1st Edn.) wrote ?Back in London Tullock actively supported
the Karen cause, writing articles and organizing meetings for the short-lived
Friends of the Hills Peoples of Burma, which were attended by a number of
prominent veterans, including post-war governor, Dorman-Smith, and ex-FAA
director. H.N.C. Stevenson.  But most drew the line at his more ambitious
plans.  In mid-1948 he travelled to Calcutta with the apparent intention of
sailing on to Moulmein with a boatload of arms and ammunition.  Another Force
136 confederate, Alexander Campbell of the Daily Mail, made it to Rangoon, but
the plot was uncovered and he was arrested and deported, leaving Tullock
stranded in Calcutta unconvincingly protesting his innocence.?

	?Tullock was later arrested and imprisoned in Britain on unrelated charges;
At his trial, the judge described him as ?a champion of lost causes?.?
(Pp.113-114).

	Captain Vivian was freed from the Insein Jail by the KNU troops in Feb 1949. 
He was presumed to have been killed along with Saw Ba U Gyi, the KNU
President, in August 1950.  It turned out that he went back to Britain in the
mid-1950s via Thailand, and died in Wales in the late 1980s (?Who Killed Aung
San? by U Kin Oung, 1996, 2nd Edn. p. 6).

	It is undeniable that the FBHP group existed and apparently did try to help
the KNU, without the latter obtaining any substantial assistance, if at all
any.   The same thing may apply to any linkage of the FBHP to the Aung San
assassination, that is, this fly-by-night organization might have had very
little or no connection to the July 1947 atrocity.  For the time being, until
proven otherwise, with a few exceptions, the British personnel involved in
this ?plot? were better regarded as adventurers who, perhaps with tacit
understanding of higher official authorities, were simply the avaricious type
rather than being truly sympathetic and concerned colonials.

	For a change of ?View? on the assassination of Bogyoke Aung San and his
Cabinet members, we may refer to a passage in U (ex-Brig.) Maung Maung?s book,
?Burmese Nationalist Movements 1940-1948?, (1989): ?At the time the
information received by the Governor from official police sources was that the
assassins were said to be members of 4 BURIF [4th Battalion the Burma Rifles,
infantry battalion] organized with entire personnel of the original BIA or BDA
or the PBF, where Major (then) Ne Win was the Second in Command and CO
[Commanding Officer] designate with an Englishman as the CO.? (p. 317)

	The ?View? tells us that there has been progress in the ?Union?, and that
sounds good enough, except for the fact that people who visited Myanmar lately

came back with great concerns which they dared not express while there; 
concern about the very bad economy which seems to have not even a prayer of
hope for improvement at the moment, concern about the ?police state?
atmosphere where no one could say anything adverse to the SPDC, concern about
a government bent on annihilating any opposition, including incessant uncouth
propaganda against one lone opposition lady who undoubtedly rises far above
most anyone in that country in terms of intellect, and finally, concern about
the perpetuation of the military, which is not a healthy prospect to look
forward to.   

We can always entertain a wish and work toward convincing the military to
relax its grip and think about welcoming multiple opinion in the governing
system of that country.

Released by:
Information and Communication Dept.
Karen National Leaguue
Email: KNLcomm@xxxxxxx