February 15, 2008, Bangkok - The assassination of a senior Karen rebel leader on the Thai-Burma border has dealt a severe blow not only to the Karen insurgency but also for the country's pro-democracy movement, observers said Friday.
Karen National Union (KNU) general secretary Mahn Sha was gunned down in his home in Mae Sot, Thailand, Thursday afternoon by unknown assailants.
"A black-coloured vehicle parked in front of his house at about 4:00 pm and one man came out with a bouquet of flowers," said Blooming Night Zan, secretary for the Karen Women's Organization.
"He greeted Mahn Sha in Karen, saying 'good evening uncle,' and then shot him," Zan told Deutsche Presse Agentur dpa from Mae Sot, 380 kilometres north of Bangkok.
A second assassin from the car, which had a Thai licence plate, then shot Mahn Sha twice in the body, leaving him dead.
Thai police found the car parked near the Moei River, which defines the Thai-Burma border, but have yet to identify the assailants.
Karen sources suspect the gunmen were members of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, a Karen splinter group that broke with the KNU in 1995 and is now allied with the Burmese army.
The slaying of Mahn Sha was seen as a great blow for the KNU, an insurgency that has been fighting for the autonomy of the Karen State for the past six decades, and for Burma's pro-democracy movement.
"For the Burmese audience Mahn Sha was the second most popular Karen leader after Bo Mya," said Win Min, a Thailand-based Burmese scholar.
"His death is a loss for the Burmese pro-democracy movement as a whole, since Mahn Sha was one of the few Karen leaders who was accepted by the various groups within the movement, especially those acting in exile," said Win Min.
But more specifically, his murder was another blow for the KNU. Bo Mya, the military leader of the Karen National Liberation Army, died in December 24, 2006, from illness. His demise was a major blow for the insurgency and a source of further splits within the remaining forces.
In February 2007, the KNU's 7th Brigade split off from the main force and entered into peace negotations with Burma's junta.
The 7th Brigade is one faction of the more active forces within the KNU, which has been waging a guerrilla struggle against the central government for the independence of the Karen State since 1949.
There are an estimated 4,000 KNU troops still in the field against the junta.
The KNU is one of the last ethnic minority insurgencies that has refused to enter into a peace agreements with the ruling junta, which has monopolized politcal power in the country since 1962.
Mahn Sha's murder has at least highlighted the plight of the Karen, whose struggle has often been overlooked by the international community, Win Min noted.
In Washington DC, US Congressman Joe Pitts, in a statement on Mahn Sha's death, said the assassination should draw world attention to the ongoing persecution of the Karen and other ethnic minorities by the Myanmar regime.
"For too long, the plight of the people of Burma has either been ignored or discussed ad nauseam with little or no action on behalf of the people," said Pitts
"With over 1.5 million internally displaced persons and refugees as a result of the brutal attacks by the dictatorship's army, it is time for change. The international community must ensure that what happened to Mahn Sha does not happen to any other ethnic, democracy, or religious leader in Burma," he added.
Burma's junta has been carrying out a large-scale offensive against the KNU for the past two years, forcing about 30,000 Karens to flee their homes and seek shelter in camps for "displaced persons" along the Thai border, while thousands of others continue to lead a precarious existence in their homeland.
NationMM
Friday, 15 February 2008
Quote on referendum
"They will face many difficulties with this referendum,
because people know this referendum will make them slaves,"
__Karen National Union (KNU) Secretary General
Mahn Sha Lar Phan - three days before shot dead - 14 Feb'08
INTERVIEW-Slain Myanmar rebel predicted rising tensions
By Ed Cropley
Editing by Darren Schuettler and
Alex Richardson
Reuters
BANGKOK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Only three days before he was shot dead in his home on the Thai border, a top Myanmar rebel leader predicted heightened tension with the ruling military junta in the run-up to a May constitutional referendum.
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Karen National Union (KNU) secretary general Mahn Sha Lar Phan said the junta's plan to push through its army-drafted charter would meet opposition not just from the former Burma's many rebel groups.
"They will face many difficulties with this referendum, because people know this referendum will make them slaves," the soft-spoken 64-year-old history graduate said, sitting in the same wooden seat where he would be shot dead three days later.
Dissident groups are already campaigning for a "no" vote, saying the as yet unfinished charter is an attempt by the junta to legitimise its grip on power after 46 years of military rule.
Even though Mahn Sha's assassination could be the result of an internecine vendetta, the predominantly Christian KNU leadership was quick to accuse Yangon's military regime of orchestrating the hit via a loyal Buddhist Karen splinter group.
"This is the work of the DKBA and the Burmese soldiers," his son Hse Hse said, referring to the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army.
According to Mahn Sha's neighbour, the two gunmen spoke Karen.
The Karen, an ethnic minority of about 7 million people, have been fighting for independence since 1949, one of the world's longest-running guerrilla conflicts. They are one of only three rebel militias not to have signed a ceasefire with the junta.
There had been no contact between the KNU leadership, based on the Thai border, and Myanmar's generals for a year, Mahn Sha said, adding that there appeared to be little immediate prospect of peace. His death makes the chances even more remote.
"If the regime declared a nationwide ceasefire, there would be no need to fight," he said. "But now, we need to protect our people and to protect ourselves."
Having graduated from Rangoon University in 1966 with a degree in history, Mahn Sha threw himself into the Karen liberation movement, rising to became its secretary-general in 2000.
"His determination for freedom and democracy lives on within us and within the Karen people," his four children said in a statement issued by the Burma Campaign UK, an activist group.
"He did not live to see freedom for our people, but his dream will be fulfilled. The Karen, and all the people of Burma, will be free".
Myanmar has been under military rule of one form or another since 1962, during which time it has been riven by dozens of ethnic guerrilla wars, funded in large part by revenues from opium sales from the notorious "Golden Triangle".
Editing by Darren Schuettler and
Alex Richardson
Reuters
BANGKOK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Only three days before he was shot dead in his home on the Thai border, a top Myanmar rebel leader predicted heightened tension with the ruling military junta in the run-up to a May constitutional referendum.
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Karen National Union (KNU) secretary general Mahn Sha Lar Phan said the junta's plan to push through its army-drafted charter would meet opposition not just from the former Burma's many rebel groups.
"They will face many difficulties with this referendum, because people know this referendum will make them slaves," the soft-spoken 64-year-old history graduate said, sitting in the same wooden seat where he would be shot dead three days later.
Dissident groups are already campaigning for a "no" vote, saying the as yet unfinished charter is an attempt by the junta to legitimise its grip on power after 46 years of military rule.
Even though Mahn Sha's assassination could be the result of an internecine vendetta, the predominantly Christian KNU leadership was quick to accuse Yangon's military regime of orchestrating the hit via a loyal Buddhist Karen splinter group.
"This is the work of the DKBA and the Burmese soldiers," his son Hse Hse said, referring to the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army.
According to Mahn Sha's neighbour, the two gunmen spoke Karen.
The Karen, an ethnic minority of about 7 million people, have been fighting for independence since 1949, one of the world's longest-running guerrilla conflicts. They are one of only three rebel militias not to have signed a ceasefire with the junta.
There had been no contact between the KNU leadership, based on the Thai border, and Myanmar's generals for a year, Mahn Sha said, adding that there appeared to be little immediate prospect of peace. His death makes the chances even more remote.
"If the regime declared a nationwide ceasefire, there would be no need to fight," he said. "But now, we need to protect our people and to protect ourselves."
Having graduated from Rangoon University in 1966 with a degree in history, Mahn Sha threw himself into the Karen liberation movement, rising to became its secretary-general in 2000.
"His determination for freedom and democracy lives on within us and within the Karen people," his four children said in a statement issued by the Burma Campaign UK, an activist group.
"He did not live to see freedom for our people, but his dream will be fulfilled. The Karen, and all the people of Burma, will be free".
Myanmar has been under military rule of one form or another since 1962, during which time it has been riven by dozens of ethnic guerrilla wars, funded in large part by revenues from opium sales from the notorious "Golden Triangle".
China: China Pledges To Support UN Special Envoy On Myanmar
My Sin Chew
February 15, 2008
BEIJING, CHINA: China supports the efforts of the United Nations to help bring reconciliation to Myanmar, the Foreign Ministry said Thursday, ahead of a visit by the U.N. special envoy.
Ibrahim Gambari's visit to China, which does considerable trade with Myanmar, comes after Myanmar's main opposition party staged a street protest this week to complain that the ruling junta's recent moves toward democracy were not enough.
The junta last week announced plans for a referendum this May on a proposed new constitution, to be followed by a general election in 2010. The plans were made without consulting the country's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, and its detained leader, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
"China is going to support the mediation efforts of Gambari and the secretary general of the United Nations," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a news conference Thursday.
"We have taken note that the Myanmar government has taken steps toward the right direction. We hope that Myanmar can continue to proceed to promote democracy so as to achieve democratic reconciliation in Myanmar," he said.
Gambari is scheduled to visit Beijing on Monday and Tuesday, before flying to Jakarta and Singapore, U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said.
China objects to Western criticisms of the Myanmar's military regime, saying that conditions in the country have improved dramatically since a violent crackdown on peaceful protests in September.
Myanmar, also known as Burma, has been under military rule since 1962 and has not had a constitution since 1988, when the army brutally suppressed pro-democracy protests and the current junta took power.
On Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the junta to hold substantive talks with Suu Kyi without delay to ensure that the constitution represents all citizens.
He also urged the government to grant a visa to Gambari to allow him to visit Myanmar again soon. Gambari has made two visits to promote reconciliation after last year's crackdown on protesters.
Ban has made it clear the United Nations is highly critical of the constitution-drafting process.
February 15, 2008
BEIJING, CHINA: China supports the efforts of the United Nations to help bring reconciliation to Myanmar, the Foreign Ministry said Thursday, ahead of a visit by the U.N. special envoy.
Ibrahim Gambari's visit to China, which does considerable trade with Myanmar, comes after Myanmar's main opposition party staged a street protest this week to complain that the ruling junta's recent moves toward democracy were not enough.
The junta last week announced plans for a referendum this May on a proposed new constitution, to be followed by a general election in 2010. The plans were made without consulting the country's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, and its detained leader, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
"China is going to support the mediation efforts of Gambari and the secretary general of the United Nations," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a news conference Thursday.
"We have taken note that the Myanmar government has taken steps toward the right direction. We hope that Myanmar can continue to proceed to promote democracy so as to achieve democratic reconciliation in Myanmar," he said.
Gambari is scheduled to visit Beijing on Monday and Tuesday, before flying to Jakarta and Singapore, U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said.
China objects to Western criticisms of the Myanmar's military regime, saying that conditions in the country have improved dramatically since a violent crackdown on peaceful protests in September.
Myanmar, also known as Burma, has been under military rule since 1962 and has not had a constitution since 1988, when the army brutally suppressed pro-democracy protests and the current junta took power.
On Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the junta to hold substantive talks with Suu Kyi without delay to ensure that the constitution represents all citizens.
He also urged the government to grant a visa to Gambari to allow him to visit Myanmar again soon. Gambari has made two visits to promote reconciliation after last year's crackdown on protesters.
Ban has made it clear the United Nations is highly critical of the constitution-drafting process.
Burma: Lessons from the Past, Problems in the Present and Thoughts about the Future
By Dr. Josef Silverstein
Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University
Asian Tribune
February 15, 2008 - What I’m going to talk today is about the central political problem in Burma, for centuries, where it was, where things may be heading. Why did the previous constitutions fail in uniting the ethnic groups and the country? In 1960, several assessments were made, and the Burmese University produced some of the leading world leaders in several subjects. What happened?
In World War II, Japanese liberated Burma from the British, and then the British liberated Burma from the Japanese. The country was in recovery, in many areas such as rice production. In 1960, Burma, for the first time, exported millions of tons of rice to the rest of the world—even 3 million tons at one time. How do we explain how things fell to the situation at this time of the day, as it is one of the greatest tragedies?
Now, we’ll go back to 1945, at the end of the war, and 1947, where there was a rapid move towards independence. The Burmese people know that they must recover from Independence, and they can no longer stay as a previous colonial state. The Burmese, under no condition, want to accept colonialism, and they want freedom and independence.
In 1936, there was a nationalist movement where a young man named Aung San, who was a student leader, joined Dr. Ba Maw and formed a united front. The country was not unified—at least 8 major ethnic groups were ruling their own territories. The British inherited this structure from the Burmese king, where several ethnic groups led their own areas on their own. The central political power was in the South, in the Irrawaddy valley, in Rangoon. This led to isolation of other ethnic groups in the rest of the country.
On the eve of the meeting between Aung San and Clement Atlee, they formed AFPFL—Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League. The key statement of AFPFL is: It is our policy, in regard to the frontier areas of the people (those outside of Rangoon), in our relation to the people of the frontier system, form a Federation of Burma to include and unite several people and bring them together for the first time. It is not the intention to impose anything that the ethnic groups do not want, but to give them the autonomy as they need. Their policy is to invite others to join them to this assembly, under mutual conditions, where the Burmans and the non-Burmans agree upon.
Aung San, a general at that time, was going to take off his uniform to become U Aung San, to become the leader of AFPFL. The area of concern was the concerns of the people of the frontier. The Hill People would be allowed to administer their own areas in any ways they please, without any imposition of policy from the Burmans.
There will be equality and everyone will get their equal share of resources. There will be autonomy based on the needs of the diverse groups. That was the bedrock of AFPFL, where between the two levels (the state and union governments), there will be interaction in Burmese and English, in learning about one another, slowly absorbing each others’ cultures; creating a multi-racial society.
In reality, AFPFL did not work. The reason this didn’t work was there wasn’t enough time for this idea to work out. In their meeting, Aung San and Atlee demanded independence within a year. The people in the frontier areas weren’t sure how they would work with the people in Rangoon. The Burmese Communist party, whose members were mostly Burmans, challenged this united front. It was a Socialist idea and Burma was to become a leftist country. Aung San himself was once a member of the communist party, but left the party, with the idea of AFPFL leading the country. Aung San removed Than Tun from the position of the secretary, and appointed John Yeng. This was a move towards the British way of Socialism instead of adopting the Soviet Socialism.
In 1948, three months after Burma achieved independence, civil war broke out. But where was the Burmese Army at this time? Admiral Mountbatten invited Aung San, Than Tun and others to see what kind of Independence the Burmese would want. They agreed to form a single army that includes all the people of Burma. By the end of 1948, Burma was deeply entrenched in war. It has been 60 years to date. Karen leader Bo Mya agreed a total cease fire with the Burma Army. They began by declaring end to fighting. The military rejected Bo Mya’s statement. Others, such as Shans, Chins, Kachins, Arakans all got problems as the military ceased to coerce them.
The constitution formed in Burma at that time, was the most controversial in the 1947constitution. Even though it no longer exists as the doctrine, it continues to be in the discussion of the law of the country. It focuses on the right to succession, and the right of withdrawal of troops. What if we joined this union, and we don’t like it, so how do we get out of it? The issue was raised with Aung San at the very first meeting and discussion with the minorities at the Ping Long conference in the Shan State. The idea was, if the minorities are not happy with the AFPFL union, any ethnic group can get out. Aung San wants the right ofs secession to be guaranteed in the constitution. It was in the article 201 of the original constitution.
The idea was, if you have been a member for 10 years of the state of the union, and you are dissatisfied, you can withdraw from the agreement. The procedure to withdraw is not easy, but doable. It was necessary for the member of the group to make a petition to the president that they wish to succeed. The president is obligated by law to hold an election, on the condition to vote, if others agree, they can withdraw. Drawbacks are, the constitution did not say what percent the majority would have to be. That information is missing. Instead of spelling out the percentage required to agree on succession, it simply states that the “majority” would have to agree on the succession.
The second flaw in the doctrine, as far as the people are concerned. When Aung San spoke of , secession he had given a number of talks about what constitutes a member of a state, and what constitutes a state in itself. And he gave out 8 points that he took from Stalin’s ideas. First he said a state has to be large enough to be called a state. Not only it is a sizable population, it must also be economically viable. There must also be a community of people who are similar in language, culture and way of life. When he laid out his 8 principles, he said there are only 2 groups that qualify this standard: the Burmans and the Shans. These two groups have advanced economically and socially, that if they wanted to succeed, they could survive by themselves, if they were to lead.
When the constitution was written, there was a controversy: The document said that it is the basic right of the people that they have the right of secession unequivocally. But there are states that would be denied of this right. First and foremost, the Karens have no right to secede, but without any reason why it was stated as such. At that time, the Karens did not protest, as they were never interested to unite with other ethnic groups. They wanted a state of their own. The Kachins were also denied of that right. The Kachin state was artificially created. The historical area of Burma where the Kachins lived and in Ba Maw Northwest to that area, there were Burmans who aren’t Kachins, but were identified more with Western civilization. However, the people of Ba Maw were combined with Kachins to form the Kachin state. They said there must be a head of state who is a Kachin. Kachins and non-Kachins have lived together peacefully.
The constitution said that the Kachin state would not have a right of secession. The Chins, on the other hand, do not have a state. They wanted to be a part of Burma proper, and they want their territory integrated with Burma itself. However, the constitution wanted the Chins to have their own state. So they are not eligible for a right of secession. The state most likely to secede was the Shan state. Shans were much more politically mature. They have achieved a great deal of experience from 1922-1948, when the British let them govern their state and interact with Europeans successfully, so they were ready to govern their own state if they want to become independent.
The other state that was given its right to secede was the Kayahs/Karennis who had a unique history. In the 1850s, there was unrest amongst the Karenni people, and King Min Don sent his army to the area and forced them to change some things. The Karenni appealed to the British to preserve their identity. The British made a treaty with King Min Don, and they had their own identity.
This was documented in the Etison-Etison (sp) treaty. They always argued that they were never under King Min Don, and they should be able to rule their own state. Aung San talked about it at 3 different times, and finally agreed that the Karenni people are free people and he invited them to join the union. They didn’t quite answer first, and at the last moment, their leaders agreed to join in the union. So, the Karenni, the only independent group, voluntarily agreed to join the union, and had the right to withdraw legally if they aren’t happy with the union.
This has been the most disturbing thing in the constitution, that right of secession after 10 years of forming the Union, will be in 1958. There was unrest in the Shan state, and the Shans had a slow movement to secession. There wasn’t a point where even a state that had a right to secede could act, due to undefined majority vote for this to happen.
In 1958, the military became an outspoken critic of this right of the Karennis. General Ne Win and other officers think that they did not tolerate the idea of anyone leaving the constitution. They warned from the beginning that if the Shans might secede, the military may violate the constitution. The constitution allowed people to voluntarily join or leave the union. The military, however, was created in 1945 with the help of the British, and it was integrated with half Burmans and half minorities. Between 1958 and 1962, there were rumblings from all sides, so U Nu, the Prime Minister, sought to resolve it in a peaceful and democratic way.
He called a seminar and invited minority groups to come to Rangoon and at the Federal Seminar, work to come to an agreement. U Nu did not promise independence, but the goal was to hash out the problems and to come to a solution. Everyone came, and had an open and honest meeting. All delegates had an open meeting, but the press was barred from it, as they would not want the information to leak out before a resolution. There were honest discussions, and the Shans and other minorities spoke freely about their discontent.
All this came to an end in 1962, March 2nd, when there was a visiting a ballet team from China, and most people who areinterested in culture, including General Ne Win were in attendance. People enjoyed the show and went home, and at night the army struck. General Ne Win called 600 troops from Meikhtila, and ordered a military coup to seize power, arrested all leaders of the government, and put an end to all the work done by the constitutional group. He didn’t trust the Rangoon cantonment, but ordered the troops from Meikhtila to help him with the coup. At that time, there were a few newspapers that reported the events.
In the mean time, the government disappeared, the constitution disappeared, and General Ne Win had formed a revolutionary council to act for the government. General Ne Win began to issue decrees illegally, and the military has operated illegally until 1974, when the military government wrote a second constitution.
So the question of secession that hung like clouds over the society for 10 years finally disappeared in 1962, with democracy disappearing in Burma, and in its place you have military dictatorship. Ne Win changed the constitution by getting rid of it and formed a centralized government, or a unitary state. The center of the unitary state was a revolutionary council with 19 military officers and 1 civilian, and it took to itself the right to decree with the power of the law. There’s nothing legal in what the military did, but that they held power through the use of the gun.
The 1962 coup d’etat was a clean coup, with just one person killed by accident, the son of Sao Shwe Thaik, the Shan who was the president of the Union of Burma. So there was no secession. In its place there was a coup, with the one party rule and military dictatorship. Sadly, for the Burmese, the military was incompetent in managing the economy of the country. Very quickly the economy, the quality of life, and the beginning of development came to an end. Rice business fell, and Burma went from a country exporting millions of tons of rice to a rice-deficit country.
In 1974, the military created a political party, very much different from AFPFL, but a party that gives Socialism to the Burmese: the Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP). General Ne Win led the party with his fellow military officers. They are incompetent in managing the economy. They set the price of rice without really knowing the cost to farmers. They force the price on the farmer, so farmers stop growing rice for selling, except for their own use. 40 years later, these incompetent military officers are still running the country. Socialist way is the state owns it, the state distributes it, and everyone will have to put up with it.
So in 1974, the BSPP attempted another constitution, which isn’t much different from the revolutionary council. All power still stays with the central government, and they created a hierarchy of committees. The socialist argument of democratic centralism that was widely used in Eastern Europe was implemented. Power, decisions, and leadership remained in the hands of the military, at the very top. They created 2 mass groups: workers and farmers.
All people were categorized as belonging to such groups. There were mass meetings, thousands of people assembled, and nothing gets accomplished. The new Burma had 2 large parties, the workers’ party and the agriculturalists’ party. Obviously, it didn’t work. And Burma created the largest black market in the world.
Burma‘s goods were sold across the frontiers. The frontier people became the gatekeepers, and they charge 5% to have the goods go across the border. With that money, they buy arms to fight against the military. There were new civil wars. They controlled the border, and many ethnic groups revolt against the military. There were new civil wars.
Finally, in 1987, General Ne Win, not unlike the comic figure Rick Van Winkle, woke up after a long nap, seemed surprised, and was unable to understand why things are going so badly and Burma was falling so far behind. So, he blamed the black market, saying they are the ones with all the money. Overnight, he said certain units of money are no longer being accepted. They came up with new notes: 90 Kyat, 45 kyat, etc. Suddenly, the money belonging to the people is no longer worth any. The demonetization of the old notes left the citizens of Burma in extreme poverty.
This led to the first student revolt, as they no longer have money to spend—all their belongings were no longer valid. The military beat the students up, and in 1988, there was a dispute in a tea shop outside the Institute of Technology, and a student got killed. The army quickly came to seize the body of the student, but other students didn’t give up the body. The next day, the military cracks the students as they were crossing the famous white bridge next to Inya Lake, and many students died in this massacre. It marks the beginning of the students in revolt against the military. Later on, there was a large protest in downtown Rangoon, by the Sule pagoda. The students gathered and will not disperse.
The military brought in black trucks and arrested the students to take them to jail. There weren’t enough room in jails to put them all in, and they left the students to suffocate and die in the trucks, due to the heat outside. About 45 students died in the heated trucks that day.
This started a nationwide march against the military, with people and government workers from all walks of life joining for a change. Even the air force personnel joined in the marches with the students, to bring back democracy in Burma. The military, on September 18th, attacked the students on the streets of Rangoon. For 3 days, they shot and killed anything that moved on the streets of Rangoon. There’s no accounting for all the people who died, as the dead bodies were took to the crematoria and the evidence destroyed. The families never saw their loved ones. That was the summer of 1988 when the military seized power completely.
General Saw Maung, the acting president at that time, promised an election. Everyone believed him. About 233 parties were formed from all walks of life. There was a hidden party called “National Unity Party”, morphed from members of BSPP. There was also a new party that emerges, the party of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy (NLD). She wasn’t widely known, but stepped forward in Shwedagon Pagoda march, where she stepped forward and talked about how she wanted democracy for Burma that her father dreamt of. She began to be the leader of the people, and it became apparent that the majority of the people of Burma want her to guide them in democratizing the country.
However, the military made certain that she cannot lead the party, as she’s married to a European, so she wasn’t allowed to stand for election. She was, however, clearly the speaker of the people. The people believe in her and trust her, and it became evident that there clearly were just 2 parties competing in the national elections, the NLD and the NUP. But the military tried to prevent her party from winning. At the general elections, NLD won a landslide victory, stunning NUP and the military backing that party.
In 1960, after the 3rd elections, and U Nu had resumed the role of the Prime Minister, he was going to leave the position and there began a contest on who will succeed him. The possible successors were more interested in their futures than the country’s future. U Nu stepped aside from the role of the prime minister and called on Ne Win to take that role. Ne Win accepted this position.
Some believed that this was a plot behind Ne Win and U Nu. General Ne Win, according to the constitution, cannot be a Prime Minister, as he wasn’t elected. However, there was a clause that said it is possible for anyone who has served in the government to hold the office without elections, but only for 6 months. Ne Win and U Nu used that article to elect him. Ne Win gave a moving speech as a Prime Minister at that time, as to how he planned to serve the country.
However, after 2 months of becoming the Prime Minister, he went to the parliament to amend the constitution, so that he can serve indefinitely, beyond the 6 months that he was legally allowed to.
As soon as he took the office, this law disappeared. Parliament, listening to their Prime Minister, changed the law, saying that as long as he remained the Prime Minister, he can stay in this position indefinitely. Basically, he changed the law with the gun, not legally. When he finished his term as a Prime Minister, and allowed the 3rd election to be held, when U Nu came back, there was no way to remove Ne Win from the position.
So the point I’m making in all of this is history is crucial and important. Things do not happen by accident, they happen over time. One has to study and understand history, and we need to question why things happened the way they happened? Could they happen again? Is there a way out?
The democratic forces in Burma today stand ready to write a democratic constitution. The military, on the other hand has determined that they shall not allow that to happen. The military wants to perpetuate in the new constitution they want to write. This constitution is to secure their power, and Burma, as we all know, will go backwards.
The final question is: If this government is so bad, why do other governments all seek to favor from this? The answer is: Burma is rich of natural resources. In a time when there’s energy crisis in the world, we have China, India, Russia, all wanting the natural gases and energy resources from Burma. Look at India! It was the only country to support the students in 1988, and not recognizing the Saw Maung government. That was when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, the new leadership in India changed their policy to support the current Burmese military, as they all want a hand in the pot.
So, don’t measure the security, the strength, the intelligence, by how the outside world looks. Ask yourselves the question: What is the world getting out of this by catering to the most cruel and incompetent government in existence in the world today?
Thank you!
All Ethnic International Open University (AEIOU) in conjunction with Chiang Mai University presented this special lecture by Dr. Josef Silverstein, one of our visiting faculty members, on 9th Feb. at UNISERVE, (Fai Kham Hall) Chiang Mai University, from 9 am to 12 noon.
Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University
Asian Tribune
February 15, 2008 - What I’m going to talk today is about the central political problem in Burma, for centuries, where it was, where things may be heading. Why did the previous constitutions fail in uniting the ethnic groups and the country? In 1960, several assessments were made, and the Burmese University produced some of the leading world leaders in several subjects. What happened?
In World War II, Japanese liberated Burma from the British, and then the British liberated Burma from the Japanese. The country was in recovery, in many areas such as rice production. In 1960, Burma, for the first time, exported millions of tons of rice to the rest of the world—even 3 million tons at one time. How do we explain how things fell to the situation at this time of the day, as it is one of the greatest tragedies?
Now, we’ll go back to 1945, at the end of the war, and 1947, where there was a rapid move towards independence. The Burmese people know that they must recover from Independence, and they can no longer stay as a previous colonial state. The Burmese, under no condition, want to accept colonialism, and they want freedom and independence.
In 1936, there was a nationalist movement where a young man named Aung San, who was a student leader, joined Dr. Ba Maw and formed a united front. The country was not unified—at least 8 major ethnic groups were ruling their own territories. The British inherited this structure from the Burmese king, where several ethnic groups led their own areas on their own. The central political power was in the South, in the Irrawaddy valley, in Rangoon. This led to isolation of other ethnic groups in the rest of the country.
On the eve of the meeting between Aung San and Clement Atlee, they formed AFPFL—Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League. The key statement of AFPFL is: It is our policy, in regard to the frontier areas of the people (those outside of Rangoon), in our relation to the people of the frontier system, form a Federation of Burma to include and unite several people and bring them together for the first time. It is not the intention to impose anything that the ethnic groups do not want, but to give them the autonomy as they need. Their policy is to invite others to join them to this assembly, under mutual conditions, where the Burmans and the non-Burmans agree upon.
Aung San, a general at that time, was going to take off his uniform to become U Aung San, to become the leader of AFPFL. The area of concern was the concerns of the people of the frontier. The Hill People would be allowed to administer their own areas in any ways they please, without any imposition of policy from the Burmans.
There will be equality and everyone will get their equal share of resources. There will be autonomy based on the needs of the diverse groups. That was the bedrock of AFPFL, where between the two levels (the state and union governments), there will be interaction in Burmese and English, in learning about one another, slowly absorbing each others’ cultures; creating a multi-racial society.
In reality, AFPFL did not work. The reason this didn’t work was there wasn’t enough time for this idea to work out. In their meeting, Aung San and Atlee demanded independence within a year. The people in the frontier areas weren’t sure how they would work with the people in Rangoon. The Burmese Communist party, whose members were mostly Burmans, challenged this united front. It was a Socialist idea and Burma was to become a leftist country. Aung San himself was once a member of the communist party, but left the party, with the idea of AFPFL leading the country. Aung San removed Than Tun from the position of the secretary, and appointed John Yeng. This was a move towards the British way of Socialism instead of adopting the Soviet Socialism.
In 1948, three months after Burma achieved independence, civil war broke out. But where was the Burmese Army at this time? Admiral Mountbatten invited Aung San, Than Tun and others to see what kind of Independence the Burmese would want. They agreed to form a single army that includes all the people of Burma. By the end of 1948, Burma was deeply entrenched in war. It has been 60 years to date. Karen leader Bo Mya agreed a total cease fire with the Burma Army. They began by declaring end to fighting. The military rejected Bo Mya’s statement. Others, such as Shans, Chins, Kachins, Arakans all got problems as the military ceased to coerce them.
The constitution formed in Burma at that time, was the most controversial in the 1947constitution. Even though it no longer exists as the doctrine, it continues to be in the discussion of the law of the country. It focuses on the right to succession, and the right of withdrawal of troops. What if we joined this union, and we don’t like it, so how do we get out of it? The issue was raised with Aung San at the very first meeting and discussion with the minorities at the Ping Long conference in the Shan State. The idea was, if the minorities are not happy with the AFPFL union, any ethnic group can get out. Aung San wants the right ofs secession to be guaranteed in the constitution. It was in the article 201 of the original constitution.
The idea was, if you have been a member for 10 years of the state of the union, and you are dissatisfied, you can withdraw from the agreement. The procedure to withdraw is not easy, but doable. It was necessary for the member of the group to make a petition to the president that they wish to succeed. The president is obligated by law to hold an election, on the condition to vote, if others agree, they can withdraw. Drawbacks are, the constitution did not say what percent the majority would have to be. That information is missing. Instead of spelling out the percentage required to agree on succession, it simply states that the “majority” would have to agree on the succession.
The second flaw in the doctrine, as far as the people are concerned. When Aung San spoke of , secession he had given a number of talks about what constitutes a member of a state, and what constitutes a state in itself. And he gave out 8 points that he took from Stalin’s ideas. First he said a state has to be large enough to be called a state. Not only it is a sizable population, it must also be economically viable. There must also be a community of people who are similar in language, culture and way of life. When he laid out his 8 principles, he said there are only 2 groups that qualify this standard: the Burmans and the Shans. These two groups have advanced economically and socially, that if they wanted to succeed, they could survive by themselves, if they were to lead.
When the constitution was written, there was a controversy: The document said that it is the basic right of the people that they have the right of secession unequivocally. But there are states that would be denied of this right. First and foremost, the Karens have no right to secede, but without any reason why it was stated as such. At that time, the Karens did not protest, as they were never interested to unite with other ethnic groups. They wanted a state of their own. The Kachins were also denied of that right. The Kachin state was artificially created. The historical area of Burma where the Kachins lived and in Ba Maw Northwest to that area, there were Burmans who aren’t Kachins, but were identified more with Western civilization. However, the people of Ba Maw were combined with Kachins to form the Kachin state. They said there must be a head of state who is a Kachin. Kachins and non-Kachins have lived together peacefully.
The constitution said that the Kachin state would not have a right of secession. The Chins, on the other hand, do not have a state. They wanted to be a part of Burma proper, and they want their territory integrated with Burma itself. However, the constitution wanted the Chins to have their own state. So they are not eligible for a right of secession. The state most likely to secede was the Shan state. Shans were much more politically mature. They have achieved a great deal of experience from 1922-1948, when the British let them govern their state and interact with Europeans successfully, so they were ready to govern their own state if they want to become independent.
The other state that was given its right to secede was the Kayahs/Karennis who had a unique history. In the 1850s, there was unrest amongst the Karenni people, and King Min Don sent his army to the area and forced them to change some things. The Karenni appealed to the British to preserve their identity. The British made a treaty with King Min Don, and they had their own identity.
This was documented in the Etison-Etison (sp) treaty. They always argued that they were never under King Min Don, and they should be able to rule their own state. Aung San talked about it at 3 different times, and finally agreed that the Karenni people are free people and he invited them to join the union. They didn’t quite answer first, and at the last moment, their leaders agreed to join in the union. So, the Karenni, the only independent group, voluntarily agreed to join the union, and had the right to withdraw legally if they aren’t happy with the union.
This has been the most disturbing thing in the constitution, that right of secession after 10 years of forming the Union, will be in 1958. There was unrest in the Shan state, and the Shans had a slow movement to secession. There wasn’t a point where even a state that had a right to secede could act, due to undefined majority vote for this to happen.
In 1958, the military became an outspoken critic of this right of the Karennis. General Ne Win and other officers think that they did not tolerate the idea of anyone leaving the constitution. They warned from the beginning that if the Shans might secede, the military may violate the constitution. The constitution allowed people to voluntarily join or leave the union. The military, however, was created in 1945 with the help of the British, and it was integrated with half Burmans and half minorities. Between 1958 and 1962, there were rumblings from all sides, so U Nu, the Prime Minister, sought to resolve it in a peaceful and democratic way.
He called a seminar and invited minority groups to come to Rangoon and at the Federal Seminar, work to come to an agreement. U Nu did not promise independence, but the goal was to hash out the problems and to come to a solution. Everyone came, and had an open and honest meeting. All delegates had an open meeting, but the press was barred from it, as they would not want the information to leak out before a resolution. There were honest discussions, and the Shans and other minorities spoke freely about their discontent.
All this came to an end in 1962, March 2nd, when there was a visiting a ballet team from China, and most people who areinterested in culture, including General Ne Win were in attendance. People enjoyed the show and went home, and at night the army struck. General Ne Win called 600 troops from Meikhtila, and ordered a military coup to seize power, arrested all leaders of the government, and put an end to all the work done by the constitutional group. He didn’t trust the Rangoon cantonment, but ordered the troops from Meikhtila to help him with the coup. At that time, there were a few newspapers that reported the events.
In the mean time, the government disappeared, the constitution disappeared, and General Ne Win had formed a revolutionary council to act for the government. General Ne Win began to issue decrees illegally, and the military has operated illegally until 1974, when the military government wrote a second constitution.
So the question of secession that hung like clouds over the society for 10 years finally disappeared in 1962, with democracy disappearing in Burma, and in its place you have military dictatorship. Ne Win changed the constitution by getting rid of it and formed a centralized government, or a unitary state. The center of the unitary state was a revolutionary council with 19 military officers and 1 civilian, and it took to itself the right to decree with the power of the law. There’s nothing legal in what the military did, but that they held power through the use of the gun.
The 1962 coup d’etat was a clean coup, with just one person killed by accident, the son of Sao Shwe Thaik, the Shan who was the president of the Union of Burma. So there was no secession. In its place there was a coup, with the one party rule and military dictatorship. Sadly, for the Burmese, the military was incompetent in managing the economy of the country. Very quickly the economy, the quality of life, and the beginning of development came to an end. Rice business fell, and Burma went from a country exporting millions of tons of rice to a rice-deficit country.
In 1974, the military created a political party, very much different from AFPFL, but a party that gives Socialism to the Burmese: the Burma Socialist Program Party (BSPP). General Ne Win led the party with his fellow military officers. They are incompetent in managing the economy. They set the price of rice without really knowing the cost to farmers. They force the price on the farmer, so farmers stop growing rice for selling, except for their own use. 40 years later, these incompetent military officers are still running the country. Socialist way is the state owns it, the state distributes it, and everyone will have to put up with it.
So in 1974, the BSPP attempted another constitution, which isn’t much different from the revolutionary council. All power still stays with the central government, and they created a hierarchy of committees. The socialist argument of democratic centralism that was widely used in Eastern Europe was implemented. Power, decisions, and leadership remained in the hands of the military, at the very top. They created 2 mass groups: workers and farmers.
All people were categorized as belonging to such groups. There were mass meetings, thousands of people assembled, and nothing gets accomplished. The new Burma had 2 large parties, the workers’ party and the agriculturalists’ party. Obviously, it didn’t work. And Burma created the largest black market in the world.
Burma‘s goods were sold across the frontiers. The frontier people became the gatekeepers, and they charge 5% to have the goods go across the border. With that money, they buy arms to fight against the military. There were new civil wars. They controlled the border, and many ethnic groups revolt against the military. There were new civil wars.
Finally, in 1987, General Ne Win, not unlike the comic figure Rick Van Winkle, woke up after a long nap, seemed surprised, and was unable to understand why things are going so badly and Burma was falling so far behind. So, he blamed the black market, saying they are the ones with all the money. Overnight, he said certain units of money are no longer being accepted. They came up with new notes: 90 Kyat, 45 kyat, etc. Suddenly, the money belonging to the people is no longer worth any. The demonetization of the old notes left the citizens of Burma in extreme poverty.
This led to the first student revolt, as they no longer have money to spend—all their belongings were no longer valid. The military beat the students up, and in 1988, there was a dispute in a tea shop outside the Institute of Technology, and a student got killed. The army quickly came to seize the body of the student, but other students didn’t give up the body. The next day, the military cracks the students as they were crossing the famous white bridge next to Inya Lake, and many students died in this massacre. It marks the beginning of the students in revolt against the military. Later on, there was a large protest in downtown Rangoon, by the Sule pagoda. The students gathered and will not disperse.
The military brought in black trucks and arrested the students to take them to jail. There weren’t enough room in jails to put them all in, and they left the students to suffocate and die in the trucks, due to the heat outside. About 45 students died in the heated trucks that day.
This started a nationwide march against the military, with people and government workers from all walks of life joining for a change. Even the air force personnel joined in the marches with the students, to bring back democracy in Burma. The military, on September 18th, attacked the students on the streets of Rangoon. For 3 days, they shot and killed anything that moved on the streets of Rangoon. There’s no accounting for all the people who died, as the dead bodies were took to the crematoria and the evidence destroyed. The families never saw their loved ones. That was the summer of 1988 when the military seized power completely.
General Saw Maung, the acting president at that time, promised an election. Everyone believed him. About 233 parties were formed from all walks of life. There was a hidden party called “National Unity Party”, morphed from members of BSPP. There was also a new party that emerges, the party of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy (NLD). She wasn’t widely known, but stepped forward in Shwedagon Pagoda march, where she stepped forward and talked about how she wanted democracy for Burma that her father dreamt of. She began to be the leader of the people, and it became apparent that the majority of the people of Burma want her to guide them in democratizing the country.
However, the military made certain that she cannot lead the party, as she’s married to a European, so she wasn’t allowed to stand for election. She was, however, clearly the speaker of the people. The people believe in her and trust her, and it became evident that there clearly were just 2 parties competing in the national elections, the NLD and the NUP. But the military tried to prevent her party from winning. At the general elections, NLD won a landslide victory, stunning NUP and the military backing that party.
In 1960, after the 3rd elections, and U Nu had resumed the role of the Prime Minister, he was going to leave the position and there began a contest on who will succeed him. The possible successors were more interested in their futures than the country’s future. U Nu stepped aside from the role of the prime minister and called on Ne Win to take that role. Ne Win accepted this position.
Some believed that this was a plot behind Ne Win and U Nu. General Ne Win, according to the constitution, cannot be a Prime Minister, as he wasn’t elected. However, there was a clause that said it is possible for anyone who has served in the government to hold the office without elections, but only for 6 months. Ne Win and U Nu used that article to elect him. Ne Win gave a moving speech as a Prime Minister at that time, as to how he planned to serve the country.
However, after 2 months of becoming the Prime Minister, he went to the parliament to amend the constitution, so that he can serve indefinitely, beyond the 6 months that he was legally allowed to.
As soon as he took the office, this law disappeared. Parliament, listening to their Prime Minister, changed the law, saying that as long as he remained the Prime Minister, he can stay in this position indefinitely. Basically, he changed the law with the gun, not legally. When he finished his term as a Prime Minister, and allowed the 3rd election to be held, when U Nu came back, there was no way to remove Ne Win from the position.
So the point I’m making in all of this is history is crucial and important. Things do not happen by accident, they happen over time. One has to study and understand history, and we need to question why things happened the way they happened? Could they happen again? Is there a way out?
The democratic forces in Burma today stand ready to write a democratic constitution. The military, on the other hand has determined that they shall not allow that to happen. The military wants to perpetuate in the new constitution they want to write. This constitution is to secure their power, and Burma, as we all know, will go backwards.
The final question is: If this government is so bad, why do other governments all seek to favor from this? The answer is: Burma is rich of natural resources. In a time when there’s energy crisis in the world, we have China, India, Russia, all wanting the natural gases and energy resources from Burma. Look at India! It was the only country to support the students in 1988, and not recognizing the Saw Maung government. That was when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, the new leadership in India changed their policy to support the current Burmese military, as they all want a hand in the pot.
So, don’t measure the security, the strength, the intelligence, by how the outside world looks. Ask yourselves the question: What is the world getting out of this by catering to the most cruel and incompetent government in existence in the world today?
Thank you!
All Ethnic International Open University (AEIOU) in conjunction with Chiang Mai University presented this special lecture by Dr. Josef Silverstein, one of our visiting faculty members, on 9th Feb. at UNISERVE, (Fai Kham Hall) Chiang Mai University, from 9 am to 12 noon.
The Art of Defiance
Despite a censorship crackdown,
Burma's underground artists are determined to get their message out.
Burma's underground artists are determined to get their message out.
Painted Messages: An Orwellian sign (left) admonishes Burmese citizens to avoid outside influences; an artist's painting (right) remains hidden in his studio because public display would invite troubleBy Jacob Baynham | Newsweek Web Exclusive | February 14, 2008
In a simple studio tucked into the shadows of a wealthy Rangoon neighborhood, a leading member of Burma's underground political art movement lights a Red Ruby cigarette, smoke curling into the hollows of his cheeks. Thein Soe (not his real name) is 61 years old and probably weighs less than 100 pounds. The paintings spread across the studio walls, desk and floor could bring a prison sentence in this military dictatorship, where freedom of expression has not existed for 46 years, since the military took power in a coup. "It's very difficult to show our inner sense, our expression," says Soe. "There are many censors for art here."
Things took a turn for the worse in September, when an uprising of monks and civilians was crushed by the military. Poets, bloggers and comedians have been targeted in the last few months for their political commentary. Arrests are more frequent. Despite the crackdown, Burma's underground political art movement is growing. In secret, artists buy and sell portraits of the detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and share ideas and inspiration. Young artists are also joining the fold. For lack of traditional materials, several youths have turned to installation and performance art to speak their minds. One young man recently walked a busy street with a birdcage on his head before dropping it and fleeing. "We paint what we suffer and what we feel," says Soe, speaking for a group of a dozen or so master artists. "It's very dangerous for us."
Across town Rangoon's latest music sensation, emcee J-Me, also deals with daily censorship of his work. Spoon-deep in a bowl of pasta at a trendy café, J-Me is proof that Burma's xenophobic government is no match for the globalization of popular culture. Officially, U.S. sanctions prevent American exports to Burma, but hip-hop is difficult to stop at the borders. "It's a big thing for us," says J-Me, who is dressed in baggy shorts and a T-shirt, with a fake diamond bling watch and a crucifix around his neck. "It may not be a big thing for everyone outside, but we've created the Myanmar Hip-Hop Association. Not the sissy-ass songs that you dance to on TRL [a pop hits show on MTV], you know what I'm sayin'? The real Wu-Tang stuff."
Burmese hip-hop may be slightly old-school in style and struggling to define itself, but it's sweeping the nation nevertheless. Teashop stereos that were locked into '80s hair metal for two decades are now thumping a different beat. The rapping of J-Me and his friends is revolutionary in that unlike other musicians who sing in refined, polite Burmese, these emcees rap in the slang of the streets.
For the hip-hoppers, of course, political lyrics are out of the question. "Hip-hop just started here," says J-Me's fellow emcee Bigg-Y. "If we go and rap about politics, they'll stop us." Rapper G-Tone was arrested two months ago when he revealed a tattoo on his back that included images of folded palms and prayer beads. G-Tone insists the design was inspired by the Joker hip-hop clothing line, but the police thought it was a symbol for September's monk-led Saffron Revolution. They let him go but banned him from performing for a year. Censors are paying particular attention to lyrics after September's uprisings. "They watch my lyrics with a big magnifying glass," J-Me says.
The government mouthpiece, the New Light of Myanmar, ran an editorial in January denouncing the Western influences changing the face of Burma. It warned the youth to "stay away from decadent costumes, words incompatible with Myanmar [Burmese] custom, and behaviors that lack modesty." The booty girls in Burmese hip-hop videos, which are bought and sold in pirated copies on the streets of Rangoon, dance with their midriffs and miniskirts digitally blurred.
The U.S. Embassy in Rangoon has helped the artists' underground. In December the embassy sponsored an art exhibit that featured Burmese and American painters. Diplomats, local artists and members of the public came. (The same exhibit will be shown later this year in San Francisco, where it will feature politically themed paintings that would not be tolerated by the censorship board in Burma.) Although the scope of U.S. Embassy projects is limited inside Burma, the Embassy carries on cultural exchange programs that feature American art and music. "We have good relations with the people of this country," says the U.S. chargé d'affaires for Burma, Shari Villarosa. "We want to have a full, open relationship with this country."
Last winter, Villarosa hosted a hip-hop show on the grounds of her private residence in Rangoon. The American hip-hop group Timeless Voices of America performed, as part of the State Department's Rhythm Road program, which sponsors American music abroad. J-Me and some of his friends rapped alongside. "Basically, we don't censor art in the United States," Villarosa says. "This is a means of communication for the artists with the people. They have something to say, and we're interested in what they have to say."
Even with government censors looking over their shoulders, Burma's artists have found ways of getting their message through. Some political art pieces are made in private and sent out of the country to be displayed in international galleries. Other pieces are just subtle enough to escape censorship. One artist recently made a clay sculpture of a lock and key—"the key that will be used to unlock Burma's future," he says. He plans to tell the censors it signifies men and women. But the consequences of being found out are serious. In January a poet was sent to jail for a hidden message in a love poem he printed in a Rangoon daily newspaper. The message read: "Gen. Than Shwe is crazy with power."
Every painting displayed in a gallery or shop in Burma must first pass the scrutiny of the ministry of information's censorship board. Any sign of discontent or disloyalty to the government, or an unseemly political message can shut down the gallery and land the artist in jail. Musicians have to explain their lyrics to the censorship board before they can record. Policemen attend concerts to make sure nothing unsavory slips out onstage. The censors' scrutiny is especially severe after September's Saffron Revolution. Many artists, however, remained determined. "Artists have a responsibility to their people and country to express what happens," says one artist in Rangoon whose brother was jailed for 11 years and whose uncle died behind bars, both for their political poetry. "We are not angry; we are sad. All of these years have been wasted time."
Anti-Israel agitators target Leviev shops
By Rachel Fletcher
The Jewish Chronicle
February 15, 2008 - Anti-Israel demonstrators have targeted the diamond stores of Israel’s wealthiest man, Lev Leviev.
Protestors gathered outside the London and New York stores to deliver a “Justice Valentine”, claiming that “Lev’s diamonds are crime’s best friend.”
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign invited supporters to spread an existing American campaign boycotting Leviev diamonds to London, with 20 demonstrators picketing the Old Bond Street store on Saturday. The protests were timed to coincide with the last major shopping day before Valentine’s Day.
PSC’s website accused Mr Leviev of building illegal settlements in the West Bank and added: “His diamond company has been accused of supplying blood rubies from Burma used to finance Myanmar’s military junta” — a charge the company strongly denies.
London demonstrators included members of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, Stop the Wall, and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, holding placards and leafleting passers-by.
In Manhattan, 45 protestors carried red heart-shaped signs with slogans such as “Settlements are Heartless” and sang a parody of the song Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend.
A statement from Mr Leviev and the Lev Leviev Group of Companies said the protests were “politically motivated. Those who personally attack the companies or its founder deliberately neglect their extensive humanitarian and philanthropic work, which includes building schools, orphanages, and fostering economic development in communities around the world.
“These protests are also inaccurate in their charges against Leviev diamonds. Leviev is a rigorous supporter of the UN-mandated Kimberley Process concerning conflict-free diamonds and ensures that all gemstones — of all colours — are sourced through internationally recognized legal and ethical guidelines.”
The Jewish Chronicle
February 15, 2008 - Anti-Israel demonstrators have targeted the diamond stores of Israel’s wealthiest man, Lev Leviev.
Protestors gathered outside the London and New York stores to deliver a “Justice Valentine”, claiming that “Lev’s diamonds are crime’s best friend.”
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign invited supporters to spread an existing American campaign boycotting Leviev diamonds to London, with 20 demonstrators picketing the Old Bond Street store on Saturday. The protests were timed to coincide with the last major shopping day before Valentine’s Day.
PSC’s website accused Mr Leviev of building illegal settlements in the West Bank and added: “His diamond company has been accused of supplying blood rubies from Burma used to finance Myanmar’s military junta” — a charge the company strongly denies.
London demonstrators included members of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, Stop the Wall, and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, holding placards and leafleting passers-by.
In Manhattan, 45 protestors carried red heart-shaped signs with slogans such as “Settlements are Heartless” and sang a parody of the song Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend.
A statement from Mr Leviev and the Lev Leviev Group of Companies said the protests were “politically motivated. Those who personally attack the companies or its founder deliberately neglect their extensive humanitarian and philanthropic work, which includes building schools, orphanages, and fostering economic development in communities around the world.
“These protests are also inaccurate in their charges against Leviev diamonds. Leviev is a rigorous supporter of the UN-mandated Kimberley Process concerning conflict-free diamonds and ensures that all gemstones — of all colours — are sourced through internationally recognized legal and ethical guidelines.”
Junta extends arrest of opposition leader
Mizzima News
February 14, 2008
Burma's military rulers on Wednesday extended the house arrest of the Vice-Chairman of the National League for Democracy, Burma's main opposition party.
Sources close to the Ministry of Home Affairs said junta officials went to the residence of Tin Oo on Wednesday and read out an order extending his house arrest for another year.
Retired Commander-in-Chief General Thura Tin Oo was placed under house arrest after being attacked by a junta-backed mob in Depayin on May 30, 2003, while accompanying party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on a political tour in upper Burma.
February 14, 2008
Burma's military rulers on Wednesday extended the house arrest of the Vice-Chairman of the National League for Democracy, Burma's main opposition party.
Sources close to the Ministry of Home Affairs said junta officials went to the residence of Tin Oo on Wednesday and read out an order extending his house arrest for another year.
Retired Commander-in-Chief General Thura Tin Oo was placed under house arrest after being attacked by a junta-backed mob in Depayin on May 30, 2003, while accompanying party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on a political tour in upper Burma.
NLD member given life sentence for sedition
By Nan Kham Kaew
Democratic Voice of Burma
Feb 14, 2008 (DVB) - The defence lawyer for a National League for Democracy member who was recently sentenced to life imprisonment has claimed that his client’s punishment is unlawful.
Lawyer U Myint Thwin said that Ko Thiha, a youth member of Meikhtila township NLD in Mandalay division, was arrested by the authorities in August 2007 for possession of political leaflets bearing messages such as, “It is time to get back on track” and, “Where there are students, there are student unions”.
Two weeks later, he was charged with sedition and incitement to offences against the public tranquility under sections 124(a) and 505(b) of the penal code.
The court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus an additional two-year jail term for the offences.
U Myint Thwin said it was unfair to give such harsh punishment to his client since he had only been found in possession of political documents and had not been distributing them himself.
"They can jail him for two years for a violation of 505(b) because of his possession of documents that could lead to public mischief. But life imprisonment for a violation of 124(a), sedition, is very inappropriate," said Myint Thwin.
"Even the two year jail term for the 505(b) violation is harsh for my client because the documents were only found on him, he was not distributing them or chanting the slogans publicly."
U Myint Thwin said he is now preparing an appeal on behalf of his client.
Democratic Voice of Burma
Feb 14, 2008 (DVB) - The defence lawyer for a National League for Democracy member who was recently sentenced to life imprisonment has claimed that his client’s punishment is unlawful.
Lawyer U Myint Thwin said that Ko Thiha, a youth member of Meikhtila township NLD in Mandalay division, was arrested by the authorities in August 2007 for possession of political leaflets bearing messages such as, “It is time to get back on track” and, “Where there are students, there are student unions”.
Two weeks later, he was charged with sedition and incitement to offences against the public tranquility under sections 124(a) and 505(b) of the penal code.
The court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus an additional two-year jail term for the offences.
U Myint Thwin said it was unfair to give such harsh punishment to his client since he had only been found in possession of political documents and had not been distributing them himself.
"They can jail him for two years for a violation of 505(b) because of his possession of documents that could lead to public mischief. But life imprisonment for a violation of 124(a), sedition, is very inappropriate," said Myint Thwin.
"Even the two year jail term for the 505(b) violation is harsh for my client because the documents were only found on him, he was not distributing them or chanting the slogans publicly."
U Myint Thwin said he is now preparing an appeal on behalf of his client.
Proposed referendum a hoax: Altsean
Mizzima News
February 14, 2008
A Bangkok-based pro-human rights and democracy group is the latest body to strip the junta's proposed referendum of any claim to legitimacy.
The Alternative ASEAN Network (Altsean) on Burma issued their opinion today in a media release, referring to the referendum as a "last-ditch attempt to stave off growing domestic and international pressure for genuine democratic reforms."
A true referendum, representing the desire of the people, cannot be held in an oppressive atmosphere of continuing rights violations, believes Altsean.
"The international community should not be conned into giving the regime
another two years to cause more suffering. The regime is notorious for its history of empty promises," says Debbie Stothard, Coordinator for Altsean-Burma.
"Anyone who believes the referendum will be free and fair probably believes in the tooth fairy," added Stothard.
The regime has announced that they plan to hold a constitutional referendum in May of this year, followed by a general election in 2010.
February 14, 2008
A Bangkok-based pro-human rights and democracy group is the latest body to strip the junta's proposed referendum of any claim to legitimacy.
The Alternative ASEAN Network (Altsean) on Burma issued their opinion today in a media release, referring to the referendum as a "last-ditch attempt to stave off growing domestic and international pressure for genuine democratic reforms."
A true referendum, representing the desire of the people, cannot be held in an oppressive atmosphere of continuing rights violations, believes Altsean.
"The international community should not be conned into giving the regime
another two years to cause more suffering. The regime is notorious for its history of empty promises," says Debbie Stothard, Coordinator for Altsean-Burma.
"Anyone who believes the referendum will be free and fair probably believes in the tooth fairy," added Stothard.
The regime has announced that they plan to hold a constitutional referendum in May of this year, followed by a general election in 2010.
UN chief convenes second 'Group of Friends' meeting on Burma
Mizzima News
February 14, 2008
Continuing with his efforts to usher in political reforms in Burma, Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary General on Wednesday convened a meeting of the 14-member 'Group of Friends' to review recent developments in Burma, where the military junta on Saturday announced holding a referendum in May, followed by general elections in 2010.
While details of the second meeting of the 'Group of Friends' on Burma were not disclosed, the members discussed the Burmese junta's announcement on the referendum and general elections.
Earlier this week, the world body chief called on the Burmese junta to make the constitutional referendum scheduled to be held in May representative of the views of the people of Burma - a stand neutral to western countries and Burma's neighbours.
Following the Burmese junta's announcement on Saturday on the referendum and elections, Singapore, the current Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma is a member, applauded it saying it is a positive development.
However, western nations including the UK and US have dismissed the junta's announcement saying it does not represent the views of the people of Burma.
Ban Ki-moon told members of the 'Group of Friends' that his special envoy Ibrahim Gambari would visit China on February 18 and 19 followed by stops in Jakarta and Singapore.
The Group of Friends is made up of Australia, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Vietnam and Slovenia (current President of the European Union).
February 14, 2008
Continuing with his efforts to usher in political reforms in Burma, Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary General on Wednesday convened a meeting of the 14-member 'Group of Friends' to review recent developments in Burma, where the military junta on Saturday announced holding a referendum in May, followed by general elections in 2010.
While details of the second meeting of the 'Group of Friends' on Burma were not disclosed, the members discussed the Burmese junta's announcement on the referendum and general elections.
Earlier this week, the world body chief called on the Burmese junta to make the constitutional referendum scheduled to be held in May representative of the views of the people of Burma - a stand neutral to western countries and Burma's neighbours.
Following the Burmese junta's announcement on Saturday on the referendum and elections, Singapore, the current Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Burma is a member, applauded it saying it is a positive development.
However, western nations including the UK and US have dismissed the junta's announcement saying it does not represent the views of the people of Burma.
Ban Ki-moon told members of the 'Group of Friends' that his special envoy Ibrahim Gambari would visit China on February 18 and 19 followed by stops in Jakarta and Singapore.
The Group of Friends is made up of Australia, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Vietnam and Slovenia (current President of the European Union).
Black Thursday for Kawthoolei & last Interview
Mizzima News
February 14, 2008
Pado Man Shar, general secretary of the Karen National Union, an ethnic Karen rebel group, died today after being shot by two anonymous gunmen.
Man Shar was shot by two gunmen who pulled up in a vehicle around 4:30 p.m. (local time) in front of his residence in the Thai-Burmese town of Mae Sod and stormed into the building, local residents said.
A neighbor of Man Shar said, "They fired one shot, followed by another two shots."
The Karen rebel leader was on the first floor of his residence in Mae Sod when the two assassins drove up in a van at about 4:30 p.m. (Thai Standard Time), came upstairs and shot him.
The gunshots hit Man Shar in the chest, reportedly killing him instantly.
Eyewitnesses said the two gunmen, after shooting Man Shar, got back into their vehicle and headed into town.
With only two office workers on the ground floor of his residence and no security guards, the assassins easily found their way into the house and upstairs to the unsuspecting Man Shar.
The body of Man Shar is still at his residence. Meanwhile, Burmese activists and pro-democracy groups expressed their condolences and deep regret for the unfortunate fate of the Karen rebel leader.
One of the two gunmen, who arrived in front of Man Shar's residence in a dark colored four wheel vehicle bearing the no. 425, greeted Man Shar with 'How are you,' in the Karen language, before taking out his gun and shooting him. The other assassin, who closely followed the first man, is also believed to have fired shots at Man Shar.
A Mizzima correspondent who later arrived on the scene said that so far a 9 mm bullet has been recovered and that Thai police are conducting an investigation.
An eyewitness said both assassins are approximately 5 feet 5 inches tall.
An eyewitness said one of the assassins has a dragon tattoo on his right palm and both the gunmen look over 30 years of age.
The two gunmen, who kept nearly ten feet of distance between them when entering Man Shar's house, were heard speaking and greeting him in the Sakaw Karen dialect.
Two KNU office workers on the ground floor rushed upstairs at the sound of gunfire. As the assassins came down, one of the gunmen fired an errant shot at the two office workers.
Pado Man Sha, age 64, is survived by two daughters and a son.
We reproduce here Mizzima's interview with Pado Mansha
on February 12, 2008
Q: Will the SPDC'S announcement on Saturday lead to democracy in Burma?
A: No, these announcements won't lead to restoration of democracy in Burma, but will lead to perpetuation of military dictatorship in Burma.
Q: Why did the junta issue these statements both surprisingly and hurriedly?
A: International pressure mounted after the September Revolution. It is very clear that the people inside Burma cannot tolerate the situation any longer and it has become unbearable. The regime is worried about the hindrances and stumbling blocks in their planned road map due to international pressure and UN participation. It is very clear when you see what they said in their press conference held on November 16. They said very clearly that they would not accept any interference from anyone in regard to their roadmap. It means they will go ahead with their pre-planned roadmap. They won't accept any intervention from both the UN and the international community.
Q: Can they really hold general elections in 2010?
A: They cannot hold general elections whenever they wish. They issued Notification 1/90 before. We must first ask them how they will implement their previous notification. They cannot do anything without implementing their previous notification at anytime in 2010 or 2020.
Q: They have a track record of holding such referendums and elections using coercion and intimidation. Can they repeat it this time?
A: Yes, they can. But the May 1990 election produced unexpected results for them. So they formulated the National Convention and Road Map to make the unwanted election result null and void. This time they will have fail safe planning to win by any means. We must consider concrete and resolute responses to counter their plan this time.
Q: What is likely to happen?
A: We cannot accept their current course. We must stand by the idea of mobilizing masses and mass movements.
Q: What are the responsibilities of the people?
A: The people can do many things. For instance they can resort to political, economic and social non-cooperation. These are examples of some responses they can make. At the same time, we must promote and intensify our political struggle, mass movements, armed struggle, international campaigns, and international pressure among other things. We must communicate with the junta in the language they understand. They will not care if we continue and pursue the usual policy of appeasement with them.
February 14, 2008
Pado Man Shar, general secretary of the Karen National Union, an ethnic Karen rebel group, died today after being shot by two anonymous gunmen.
Man Shar was shot by two gunmen who pulled up in a vehicle around 4:30 p.m. (local time) in front of his residence in the Thai-Burmese town of Mae Sod and stormed into the building, local residents said.
A neighbor of Man Shar said, "They fired one shot, followed by another two shots."
The Karen rebel leader was on the first floor of his residence in Mae Sod when the two assassins drove up in a van at about 4:30 p.m. (Thai Standard Time), came upstairs and shot him.
The gunshots hit Man Shar in the chest, reportedly killing him instantly.
Eyewitnesses said the two gunmen, after shooting Man Shar, got back into their vehicle and headed into town.
With only two office workers on the ground floor of his residence and no security guards, the assassins easily found their way into the house and upstairs to the unsuspecting Man Shar.
The body of Man Shar is still at his residence. Meanwhile, Burmese activists and pro-democracy groups expressed their condolences and deep regret for the unfortunate fate of the Karen rebel leader.
One of the two gunmen, who arrived in front of Man Shar's residence in a dark colored four wheel vehicle bearing the no. 425, greeted Man Shar with 'How are you,' in the Karen language, before taking out his gun and shooting him. The other assassin, who closely followed the first man, is also believed to have fired shots at Man Shar.
A Mizzima correspondent who later arrived on the scene said that so far a 9 mm bullet has been recovered and that Thai police are conducting an investigation.
An eyewitness said both assassins are approximately 5 feet 5 inches tall.
An eyewitness said one of the assassins has a dragon tattoo on his right palm and both the gunmen look over 30 years of age.
The two gunmen, who kept nearly ten feet of distance between them when entering Man Shar's house, were heard speaking and greeting him in the Sakaw Karen dialect.
Two KNU office workers on the ground floor rushed upstairs at the sound of gunfire. As the assassins came down, one of the gunmen fired an errant shot at the two office workers.
Pado Man Sha, age 64, is survived by two daughters and a son.
We reproduce here Mizzima's interview with Pado Mansha
on February 12, 2008
Q: Will the SPDC'S announcement on Saturday lead to democracy in Burma?
A: No, these announcements won't lead to restoration of democracy in Burma, but will lead to perpetuation of military dictatorship in Burma.
Q: Why did the junta issue these statements both surprisingly and hurriedly?
A: International pressure mounted after the September Revolution. It is very clear that the people inside Burma cannot tolerate the situation any longer and it has become unbearable. The regime is worried about the hindrances and stumbling blocks in their planned road map due to international pressure and UN participation. It is very clear when you see what they said in their press conference held on November 16. They said very clearly that they would not accept any interference from anyone in regard to their roadmap. It means they will go ahead with their pre-planned roadmap. They won't accept any intervention from both the UN and the international community.
Q: Can they really hold general elections in 2010?
A: They cannot hold general elections whenever they wish. They issued Notification 1/90 before. We must first ask them how they will implement their previous notification. They cannot do anything without implementing their previous notification at anytime in 2010 or 2020.
Q: They have a track record of holding such referendums and elections using coercion and intimidation. Can they repeat it this time?
A: Yes, they can. But the May 1990 election produced unexpected results for them. So they formulated the National Convention and Road Map to make the unwanted election result null and void. This time they will have fail safe planning to win by any means. We must consider concrete and resolute responses to counter their plan this time.
Q: What is likely to happen?
A: We cannot accept their current course. We must stand by the idea of mobilizing masses and mass movements.
Q: What are the responsibilities of the people?
A: The people can do many things. For instance they can resort to political, economic and social non-cooperation. These are examples of some responses they can make. At the same time, we must promote and intensify our political struggle, mass movements, armed struggle, international campaigns, and international pressure among other things. We must communicate with the junta in the language they understand. They will not care if we continue and pursue the usual policy of appeasement with them.
Jonathan Manthorpe . Burma's generals
Jonathan Manthorpe
The Vancouver Sun
February 14, 2008
One positive thing that can be said about Burma's military regime is that its generals don't bury their lies in the small print.
When they feel the need to tell a great big whopper they do it in big bold capital letters and right in your face.
Which is why it doesn't even take a second glance to see that the plans for a constitutional referendum in May and elections in 2010 announced by the generals on Saturday are nothing more than a sham.
The result of this farce will be to make things worse by legitimizing military rule behind a facade of civilian institutions.
The referendum and elections will certainly not bring to power Burma's most popular political party, the National League for Democracy.
In 1990 elections the NLD won 82 per cent of the vote; that appalled the generals and they have always refused to accept the result.
The junta, led by Gen. Than Shwe, has already moved to ensure that NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent 12 of the past 18 years under various forms of detention, can never become government leader.
A constitutional amendment has banned people from running for parliament if they are or were married to foreigners. Suu Kyi was married to British academic Michael Aris, who died in 1999.
The main reason for this unusually honest approach to lying is that the generals have discovered they don't need to disguise their duplicity.
The countries and institutions that seriously worry about the Burmese generals' brutal assaults on human and political rights - such as the European Union, the United States and liberal democratic United Nations members like Canada - are a long way away and of limited daily annoyance.
The countries that could seriously inconvenience the generals' 46-year hold on power, such as the nine fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or lustful economic partners India and China, are too fixated on self-interest to be a real problem.
There's good reason to think China's self-interest has played a significant part in prompting Than Shwe and his junta to produce this pantomime of transition to civilian rule.
The crushing of mass demonstrations by Buddhist monks and their supporters in August and September last year pushed the Burma question high up the international agenda again.
This is a problem for China, which has made Burma into what amounts to an economy colony. But China does not want its support for the Burmese regime to be yet another cause for boycotts or protests during this summer's Beijing Olympics.
So Than Shwe has been persuaded to speed up his seven-step "roadmap to democracy." In its early years this had all the hallmarks of a stalling tactic rather than an initiative.
The constitutional convention of hand-picked delegates started meeting in 1993, but only infrequently and, of course, did not include the NLD or Suu Kyi.
International uproar at the crushing of last year's demonstrations has made it expedient to move ahead on the roadmap.
We know a little about what the constitutional convention has suggested should be put to the people in a yes-or-no referendum and it is not encouraging.
The new dispensation would make the president a military appointee, and the generals will have the right to seize power if they feel national security is threatened.
A quarter of the parliamentary seats will be reserved for military appointees who will also control the key ministries.
It is also unlikely the May referendum on this travesty will be a plebiscite in any recognizable sense.
Responsibility for organizing the referendum and the 2010 elections is being given to the United Solidarity and Development Association.
The USDA is an organization of paid thugs and off-duty civil servants which claims to have 24 million members, almost half the population of Burma.
It has experience in arranging referendums, such as the 1994 outpouring of popular support for the constitutional convention. People were bribed or intimidated to attend mass rallies and thus "approve" the work of the convention.
The USDA will not only vet and select the candidates for the 2010 parliamentary election, it is also set to become a political party and the only one whose victory the generals will accept.
Jonathan Manthorpe writes for the Vancouver Sun.
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
The Vancouver Sun
February 14, 2008
One positive thing that can be said about Burma's military regime is that its generals don't bury their lies in the small print.
When they feel the need to tell a great big whopper they do it in big bold capital letters and right in your face.
Which is why it doesn't even take a second glance to see that the plans for a constitutional referendum in May and elections in 2010 announced by the generals on Saturday are nothing more than a sham.
The result of this farce will be to make things worse by legitimizing military rule behind a facade of civilian institutions.
The referendum and elections will certainly not bring to power Burma's most popular political party, the National League for Democracy.
In 1990 elections the NLD won 82 per cent of the vote; that appalled the generals and they have always refused to accept the result.
The junta, led by Gen. Than Shwe, has already moved to ensure that NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent 12 of the past 18 years under various forms of detention, can never become government leader.
A constitutional amendment has banned people from running for parliament if they are or were married to foreigners. Suu Kyi was married to British academic Michael Aris, who died in 1999.
The main reason for this unusually honest approach to lying is that the generals have discovered they don't need to disguise their duplicity.
The countries and institutions that seriously worry about the Burmese generals' brutal assaults on human and political rights - such as the European Union, the United States and liberal democratic United Nations members like Canada - are a long way away and of limited daily annoyance.
The countries that could seriously inconvenience the generals' 46-year hold on power, such as the nine fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or lustful economic partners India and China, are too fixated on self-interest to be a real problem.
There's good reason to think China's self-interest has played a significant part in prompting Than Shwe and his junta to produce this pantomime of transition to civilian rule.
The crushing of mass demonstrations by Buddhist monks and their supporters in August and September last year pushed the Burma question high up the international agenda again.
This is a problem for China, which has made Burma into what amounts to an economy colony. But China does not want its support for the Burmese regime to be yet another cause for boycotts or protests during this summer's Beijing Olympics.
So Than Shwe has been persuaded to speed up his seven-step "roadmap to democracy." In its early years this had all the hallmarks of a stalling tactic rather than an initiative.
The constitutional convention of hand-picked delegates started meeting in 1993, but only infrequently and, of course, did not include the NLD or Suu Kyi.
International uproar at the crushing of last year's demonstrations has made it expedient to move ahead on the roadmap.
We know a little about what the constitutional convention has suggested should be put to the people in a yes-or-no referendum and it is not encouraging.
The new dispensation would make the president a military appointee, and the generals will have the right to seize power if they feel national security is threatened.
A quarter of the parliamentary seats will be reserved for military appointees who will also control the key ministries.
It is also unlikely the May referendum on this travesty will be a plebiscite in any recognizable sense.
Responsibility for organizing the referendum and the 2010 elections is being given to the United Solidarity and Development Association.
The USDA is an organization of paid thugs and off-duty civil servants which claims to have 24 million members, almost half the population of Burma.
It has experience in arranging referendums, such as the 1994 outpouring of popular support for the constitutional convention. People were bribed or intimidated to attend mass rallies and thus "approve" the work of the convention.
The USDA will not only vet and select the candidates for the 2010 parliamentary election, it is also set to become a political party and the only one whose victory the generals will accept.
Jonathan Manthorpe writes for the Vancouver Sun.
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
Myanmar rebel leader killed in Thailand
* Assassinated leader’s son accuses Buddhist splinter group of killing
Mahn Sha Lar Phan
February 15, 2008 - MAE SOT: A leader of Myanmar’s biggest rebel group was assassinated at his home in the Thai border town of Mae Sot on Thursday, his wife told Reuters.
Mahn Sha Lar Phan, secretary-general of the Karen National Union, was shot at his two-storey wooden home by two men who arrived in a pickup truck, his wife Kim Suay told Reuters at the scene. He died instantly. “One of them walked up to the house and said in Karen ‘How are you, uncle?’ Then the other man joined him after parking the truck and they both shot him with two pistols,” she said, her voice shaking with emotion.
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, he had predicted a possible increase in violence ahead of a constitutional referendum in the former Burma in May. However, the KNA and its armed wing, the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) are riven by internal feuds and vendettas. His son Hse Hse, another senior member of the predominantly Christian Karen rebel movement, blamed a Buddhist Karen splinter group, which brokered a truce with Myanmar’s ruling military junta in the mid-1990s.
“This is the work of the DKBA and the Burmese soldiers,” Hse Hse said, referring to the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army. The Karen have been fighting for independence in the hills of eastern Myanmar for the last 60 years, one of the world’s longest-running insurgencies.
Source: Reuters-Daily Times
Mahn Sha Lar PhanMahn Sha Lar Phan, secretary-general of the Karen National Union, was shot at his two-storey wooden home by two men who arrived in a pickup truck, his wife Kim Suay told Reuters at the scene. He died instantly. “One of them walked up to the house and said in Karen ‘How are you, uncle?’ Then the other man joined him after parking the truck and they both shot him with two pistols,” she said, her voice shaking with emotion.
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, he had predicted a possible increase in violence ahead of a constitutional referendum in the former Burma in May. However, the KNA and its armed wing, the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) are riven by internal feuds and vendettas. His son Hse Hse, another senior member of the predominantly Christian Karen rebel movement, blamed a Buddhist Karen splinter group, which brokered a truce with Myanmar’s ruling military junta in the mid-1990s.
“This is the work of the DKBA and the Burmese soldiers,” Hse Hse said, referring to the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army. The Karen have been fighting for independence in the hills of eastern Myanmar for the last 60 years, one of the world’s longest-running insurgencies.
Source: Reuters-Daily Times