OPINION: SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST STATE (r)

[c04061998@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Re: OPINION: SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST STATE VIOLENCE

C'on - this was no self-defense.

This clearly was an aggression.

The pro-democracy movement in Burma will lose its credit and support if 
everyone stood in line behind these 'armed rebels'.

This was quite reckless and irresponsible of them.

Their behavior was not something to be proud of.

I am sure you have heard of R. Rolland "Demokratie, das ist die Kunst, sich 
an die Stelle des Volkes zu setzen und ihm feierlich in seinem Namen, aber 
zum Vorteil einiger guter Hirten die Wolle abzuscheren."

Greetings!


----Original Message Follows----
To: "BurmaNet" <burmanet-l@xxxxxxx>
Subject: OPINION: SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST STATE VIOLENCE
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 00:35:48 +0200

OPINION: SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST STATE VIOLENCE


I have never say that violence will solve problems. Must less a political
one. But you must differentiate between "state violence" and "self-defense".

Do you sincerely think the PLO will reach the stage of what it is today by
civil-disobedience or non-violence activities? The same is also true with
the IRA.

But this is not to say that violence has to be promoted. This tool and
instrument have been there for a long time and the oppressed people will
continue to use it, so long as civil governance and democratic system are
not in place. You earnestly wouldn't like to face your opponent with a bare
hand, when he is armed to teeth and also merciless and brutal.

What I wanted to point out is that the use of self-defense is an act of
desperation but at times, could change the power equation or balance of
power. This in turn could foster the atmosphere of dailogue, if the
adversary started to think he'll be losing more without negotiation or a
political settlement. Of course, apart from self-defense, a combination of
other activities - such as politcal activities within the legal fold,
economic sanctions, armed resistance and so on - would also be needed to
reach a more balance of power stage. Only after this could we start a
meaningful dailogue for lasting solution not before. If we start a dailogue
from an inferior position, we'll never be able to cut a fair deal and would
end up losing more than we expect.

Forging unity has always been the most difficult task within the opposition
camps. As stated previously, the democracy movement has never possessed a
unified command domestically and abroad activists of all stripes. Just look
at the armed resistance groups. They are divided into two main categories,
cease-fire and those still waging active resistance. On the level of "real
politik" within the country, the NLD and non-Burman political parties such
as SNLD etc. have failed to motivate the electorate to pressure the ruling
military clique, up till now.

The point is that however much we like all opposing groups to toe the line
of DASSK, there will still be such groups like the recent hostage-takers
which no one can control.

I have no argument that dailogue is the most appropriate way to achieve
durable and lasting solution to this deeply divided society. As for
devastation, it is already there for all strata of the so-called Union of
Burma. It could not be darker than midnight.




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