[burmanet2-l] Re: The Times - Bribe (r)

[stuart_albright@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Re: [burmanet2-l] Re: The Times - Bribery is key to life in Burma's death jail

Dawn Star -- Sure, there's room for "discussion" -- let's keep talking and 
talking and talking, as long as there's no action.

OK. Why did they cancel their plans? Obvious: Rachel got a long sentence. 
And nobody wanted to follow her lead. I don't blame them, jail is scary. But 
still the answer is there for everybody to see in clear daylight. They were 
scared off by SPDC. So they all retreated from the battle so they could have 
more "discussion." Right. Let's stop pretending.

SPDC clearly wanted to scare the activist community into calling off more 
direct challenges, like James and Rachel. Guess what, they did. They won.

We can pretend that we're more "resourceful" in our easy lives outside, 
writing letters and staging protests. But that stuff is soft work, for 
clerks and little girls. Where are the real fighters?  Not the daydreamers, 
but the really committed people? I only see one, and he's in Kengtung jail, 
by himself. Abandoned, basically, by his so-called comrades. Who are busy 
having "discussions."

It's been almost ten years since the election. Ten years of talking.  Let's 
change the name of Burma Action Group to Burma Talk Group. Might as well be 
honest.

Regards, Stu

>From: Dawn Star <dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: Stuart Albright <stuart_albright@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>CC: tinkyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, burmanet2-l@xxxxxxxx, burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [burmanet2-l] Re: The Times - Bribery is key to life in 
>Burma's death jail
>Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:40:49 +0200
>
>There is a lot of room for agreement and discussion here. If they had
>decided to go, and were committed to do so, then why did they turn away.
>Who told them not to do it. Was there a vote? Did they abandon the
>effort, and with it James and Rachel. It is a question for all. Who and
>when should people test the will of the junta, and the flexibility of
>the borders and the government. This obviously isnt good for tourism or
>investment and not at all good for the image of the junta. And the
>diplomats have their work cut out for them anyway, these people in jail
>are more human rights abuses on their agenda. Important and timely.
>Perhaps there is a question of who should go, under what conditions, and
>with secrecy and background fully checked and covered. And the people
>who decide to go should be aware that they will be tested and put under
>stress, perhaps tortured, as James says he was. Prison in Burma is not
>for the weak-hearted nor do for those who may be uncovered and then lost
>to the movement.
>
>No this is not a game. It is a test of will, time and committment.
>Perhaps it will take some of the heat off Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is
>obviously not to be incriminated here. This is for the world at large,
>the free world concerned about freedom in Burma. As she has said all
>along, eloquently, it is a struggle for us all.
>
>Yet some of us, if we were to choose to go and be imprisoned would be
>taking unnecessary risk and at great risk of loss of life. It would be
>more resourceful not to be imprisoned. But in any prisoner of war
>situation, these are very delicate and uneasy problems to tackle. And
>life is at risk. That is the nature of the game. That is the cost of
>sticking your neck out when others prefer to go to the shopping malls
>and watch soap operas or show off their latest car or whatever.
>Committment is not a second nature; it is the priority.
>
>If these people were called off, then perhaps it was for a reason, and
>perhaps they are only waiting in the wings. The junta border guards and
>visa donors are on the watch, so of course, every one will have to be
>exceedingly careful.
>
>And very quiet.
>
>ds
>
>
>Stuart Albright wrote:
> >
> > The last paragraph of this story is important. Why did the thirty 
>activists
> > who planned to be arrested suddenly change their minds? If  they're 
>afraid
> > of going to jail, then the movement is in real trouble.
> >
> > Nobody wants to go to jail - but it means we only stand up to SPDC if we
> > know there won't be any consequences. I don't think Daw Suu would be 
>very
> > impressed. Looks like either we're all just playing games, or we're all
> > cowards. Committed to democracy in Burma, as long as we can sleep in our 
>own
> > beds at night.
> >
> > The arrest of James and Rachel is a challenge. SPDC has thrown down the
> > gauntlet. If everybody backs down in fear, if no one else goes in to be
> > arrested, then SPDC has won, and what Rachel and James have done will be 
>in
> > vain.
> >
> > Protesting in front of Tony Blair's house is a pretty lame response.
> > Anyone who calls themselves a "freedom fighter" should be willing to 
>earn
> > that title. No fair just blaming Blair or the Foreign Office. This is
> > supposed to be a people's movement.
> >
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com