
CONTRIBUTOR
Webb’s Misguided Views
|
By PYINYA ZAWTA |
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
|
US Sen Jim Webb recently traveled to Burma to lean not on Burma's military regime, but to pressure my country's democracy movement into giving up economic sanctions—the most important tool in our struggle for freedom. Although he emphasized the necessity of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, this falls far short of the demands of the US, the United Nations and the European Union for the immediate and unconditional release of all my country's 2,100 political prisoners. Webb's ignorance of the situation in my country was revealed his book "A Time to Fight" in which he came down squarely on the side of the oppressors in Burma. He wrote about the demonstrations which took place in Burma in 2007, led by Buddhist monks such as myself. "If Westerners had remained in the country this moment might never have occurred, because it is entirely possible that conditions may have improved rather than deteriorated." Webb's statement is either shockingly naïve or willfully misleading. We Buddhist monks, who Webb discounts as a "throng," marched for an end to military dictatorship in Burma not because we wanted marginal improvements in our economy. We marched because we believe in freedom and democracy and are willing to make sacrifices to reach those goals. Webb claims that the Burmese people would benefit from interaction with the outside world, as if we need to be condescendingly "taught" by Americans about our rights and responsibilities. Had Webb spent some time with real Burmese people apart from the military regime and others who share his views, he would better understand the sacrifice we made for democracy, and he would know that we Burmese value the longstanding support we have had from the US Congress. Webb, an author, has proven extremely manipulative in his use of language, calling for "engagement" and "interaction" instead of sanctions. His implication is that the Burmese people are solely set on sanctions and confrontation—the exact same language used by Burma's military regime, which couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that the world is not as black and white as Webb would have it. We want the United States to talk to and negotiate with Burma's military regime, but this shouldn't preclude increasing international pressure. The US appears to be able to carry out this policy with other countries such as in North Korea where it is willing to talk to the North Koreans while at the same time increasing sanctions if Pyongyang doesn't respond. Webb is intent on driving a wedge into this process in the case of Burma. We must choose, he explains, between sanctions and engagement—there can be no sophisticated strategy, only complete involvement or none at all. What Webb proposes—lifting sanctions on Burma—translates to basically handing over the Burmese peoples' natural resources to rapacious multinational corporations, particularly Big Oil. If the US lifts sanctions on Burma, there will be a rush of companies into Burma intent on looting my country's natural heritage and the benefits of such "engagement" will flow directly to the military regime. In terms of human rights, Webb has remained focused only on Suu Kyi's freedom and ability to participate in scheduled elections in Burma, never mind the fact that the Burmese regime has already rigged the elections so that no matter who participates there will be many more decades of complete military rule. The new constitution is an air-tight document that gives no room whatsoever for reform from within. At the same time, Webb has completely ignored the purposeful, massive human rights violations carried out by Burma's military regime. The human rights nightmare in Burma includes the recruitment of tens of thousands of child soldiers, pressing hundreds of thousands of Burmese into forced labor and the widespread rape of ethnic minority women. Luckily for the Burmese people, Webb is not the only US senator. Recently, the US Senate voted unanimously to extend sanctions on Burma. President Obama signed the bill into law. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a student of politics and more likely to examine the facts on the ground instead of falling for blanket ideological generalizations. While Webb may seek to sell out Aung San Suu Kyi, our courageous Buddhist monks, and all the people of Burma, we hold out hope that Secretary Clinton and President Obama will take a more nuanced view in formulating policy toward Burma.
1 | 2 
|
Does your Satyagraha entitle you to:
1) Fabricate facts
2) Indirectly advocate violence by proxy "a revolution of the spirit among the rank and file soldiers of the Burma army"
3) Quoting Ko Moe Aung as though you have suffered as he has or understand the sufferings of people in a land you have not even set foot on?
Facts:
1) The sufferings of the people now are a combination of SPDC, DASSK and Useless interferences of the west that you are now epitomizing.
2) Granted you have been effective in helping at the border, do not entitle you to advocate a policy that will bring more sufferings with very doubtful result.
3) You might not realize that the consequences of your kind hearted advocacy albeit motivated by the same sentiment as all here who "hate SPDC", can only see through a tunnel vision of Burma w/o SPDC, laudable but unrealistic.
4) That is why you are unknowingly advocating status quo.
[This exchange is now closed: Ed] |
|
 |
Garrett Wrote: |
06/09/2009 |
|
Unlike planB, I am not willing to advocate throwing millions of innocent Burmese citizens to the sharks.
My remarks about what the people of Burma must do are not cavalier, they are based on reality and truth, not on the economic and political appeasement of the SPDC regime.
No planB, it is NOT easy for me to advocate hundreds OR thousands of Burmese to peacefully sacrifice their lives in a campaign of Satyagraha for the cause of gaining their children's freedom and bringing down the SPDC regime through a revolution of the spirit among the rank and file soldiers of the Burma army.
Yet you don't seem to have a problem with hundreds of thousands of Burmese citizens dying each year for the cause of SPDC greed, oppression and revenge.
Satyagraha is a valid tactic, especially in Burma where the aggressors are not an occupying colonial army, but the family members of those who would be protesting.
Whether suffering poverty or oppression, as Moe Aung said; "People must not suffer in vain". |
|
 |
Garrett Wrote: |
06/09/2009 |
|
Well put, Moe Aung.
First of all I have my doubts that planB has any relatives in Burma, nor Burmese blood in his veins, perhaps ice water.
The nature of online forums is that anyone can create a persona describing themselves to the readers, he could even say he is Than Shwe, or the Dalai Lama.
An advocacy which calls for the lifting of sanctions and to employ the tactics of engagement and diplomacy does NOTHING for the ethnic nationalities.
The idea of advocating that two thirds of the Burmese citizens AND the world should just write-off the ethnic nationality third of the population because it is too hard to deal with the regime otherwise is repulsive.
Burma is like a lifeboat lost in a storm, and surrounded by sharks. The urban citizens are allowed to sit in the boat, while the ethnic minority citizens must cling to the boat from the water, with many either drowning or being torn to shreds by the sharks.
"Save yourselves or you'll all die!", shouts planB to the boat.
|
|
 |
|
Ko Moe Aung
Neither you nor I nor any institutions are sacrosanct. Overthrowing the SPDC is a Utopian concept at this point.
Ongoing events and the resulting ends, which you and I know well what will be, will again prove the above and
1) The SPDC is playing every card right and well for it own survival.
Ruthlessness aside, this is a very "important" concept, needing to be firmly grasped by all here.
2) Taking sides will only diminish us in the eyes of the outsiders.
3) The ensuring animosity will last longer than the conflicts, will be used by the West to continue this present failed useless interference.
You know well that failure to make the 88 result count is not that simplistic as you suggested.
I hope you won't deny I and my ilk continue to advocate engagement and dialogue as it is drowned out repeatedly by SOS.
|
|
 |
Moe Aung Wrote: |
05/09/2009 |
|
planB,
I would agree that your friends and relatives in the SPDC and Tatmadaw cannot be blamed (perhaps not all of them) for the actions of the regime, just as the workers in the nuclear weapons industry were not responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Truman and his cabinet were.
'getting rid of the SPDC, by past failed means...SPDC is the de facto government'
Failure in the past doesn't mean we won't win through in the end. If at first you don't succeed...?
To you a de facto government is totally sacrosanct. So tyrants should never be overthrown because it would cause more suffering from civil war.
No pains no gains. The lesson from 1988 was ASSK's liberal commitment to non-violence and failure to split the army for fear of civil war (already going on for 40 years then) compounded by her refusal to work with U Nu thus splitting the opposition that sealed the fate of the uprising.
People must not suffer in vain. Prepare and unite both above and underground, all of us. |
|
 |
|
Garrett,
I have a lot of equally "dyslexic with psy-op psychobabble mindset" relatives and friends in Myanmar.
Some of them work for SPDC and yes some in Tamadaw. Are they all guility of:
1) All these accusations that have been spewed out repeatedly?
2) How many of these do you think want changes by means of the past as well as the one you propose so cavalierly:
"As for more suffering: What country won its freedom from such oppression without paying a price in human suffering?"
3) How many people do you really know or can relate to in your zeal to help correct these wrongs? |
|
 |
|
Garrett,
The ideas you espoused with your bravado disregard the very nature of the sufferings of the most vulnerable as depicted most poignantly here: http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16711
If these are not the kind of people you have in mind in lessening the suffering, in making your points about getting rid of the SPDC, by past failed means, then you are complicit in maintaining the status quo.
Again defined by:
1) SPDC getting exactly what they want.
2) The West's useless sanctions and endless vilification.
3) As such maintaining intransigence on all sides.
Your advocacy fulfilling any of those simply stated points? SPDC is the de facto government. Like it or not only it can effect reasonable changes at this point.
The only choice that does not entail civil war is diplomacy. Engagement require common ground essence of common ground entail quiet diplomacy. You need to move on beyond "looking back".
Leave my medical record alone. |
|
 |
Garrett Wrote: |
04/09/2009 |
|
planB,
Your feigned dyslexic reasoning is a product of your psy-op psychobabble mindset.
First we PRETEND that the SPDC will give the ethnic nationalities the same "FREEDOMS" which you somehow assume they are willing to give the rest of the Burmese citizens should THE WORLD forgive & forget their current and past atrocities.
Then we PRETEND that the SPDC will give up the HUGE profits reaped by enslaving the ethnic nationalities & exploiting their land & resources, and simply walk away from their goldmine of revenge if THE WORLD forgives them.
We then PRETEND that the SPDC will be willing to let the other 30 million Burmese citizens share their profits from the lifting of sanctions. GET REAL!
As for more suffering: What country won its freedom from such oppression without paying a price in human suffering?
Does anyone believe that non-stop peaceful protests until the SPDC falls would cost more lives than are lost EACH YEAR by doing NOTHING?
Freedom is NOT free, nor is apathy. |
|
 |
|
Ko Moe Aung,
Painting Webb's initiative as "axe to grind--" and than went on to derive the possible results to "complete negative ends".
Yet here: http://irrawaddy.org/opinion_story.php?art_id=16640 (29/8/09)
You clearly describe this potential dynamic:
"A reforming government is said to be at the greatest risk of losing control. "
As much as you might dislike how it came about, the imbecile Yettaw created a flux previously unseen and has not yet ended.
Let us see where this will carrying.
Lest I will have to label you consistently inconsistent.
|
|
 |
|
Garette
Thank you for your response.
At least this time, I can glean that;
1) You will only support a plan that will make the SPDC pay for every atrocity committed, with interest.
2) While waiting, you will sacrifice more people's plight to the treachery of the SPDC.
Is it that kind of cold to be risking other's sufferings for the benefit of your passion for justice?
Justice is worth more sufferings?
Even assuming it will happen soon.
|
|
 |
Moe Aung Wrote: |
02/09/2009 |
|
Victor is right in asserting that 'the onus is on all Burmese, not foreigners'.
If the foreign policy of a superpower brings about regime change either overtly or covertly,the outcome generally works in favor of the instigator of change,and not necessarily in favor of the people of the country,despite the rhetoric and justification to intervene.
Webb has an axe to grind,and will shed crocodile tears as the corporations join in the feeding frenzy. He has a point if one believes it's better to be exploited than not,and even better by the West than by China and the rest. Chevron and Total have never left,and continue to justify their presence on the basis of the universal excuse for capitalist competition - 'if you don't do it,Jones will' - regardless of the reported human rights violations directly linked to their operations.
It's the 8-8-88 Uprising that saw the founding of the above-ground opposition, not foreigners. We could do with outside help,but we must do it ourselves. Unite! |
|
 |
Garrett Wrote: |
02/09/2009 |
|
planBS,
As usual you think very highly of your nonsense and believe that you can sway public opinion with your disinformation based comments and questions.
FYI, I have been locked out of further comments in the thread with your inane questions, probably to save you further embarrassment than is created by your own comments which are as far from reality as you could get.
The pipe dreams that there are any possible means by which the SPDC will allow peace, reconciliation, and prosperity to occur in Burma, are simply placebo concepts.
They will continue to do what they do best which is to oppress and persecute, and they will greedily accept whatever they can swindle from ignorant and self-serving politicians, while people like you continue to misinform and misdirect on their behalf.
It is clear that like the SPDC, you have an agenda, but no concience.
The parasitic SPDC is NOT going to give up their revenge, profits, and oppression no matter who you blame for their reasoning. |
|
 |
|
Victor
If "the onus is up to the Burmese" will you care to to tell us why we have to burden the ongoing useless interferences of the west and China that made our country the way it is to day. More "onerous to the plight of ordinary Burmese?"
Not yet admitted let alone debated.
Webb is but the first to see thing differently and being labelled with such incivility by his own country man let alone the groups that desire status quo so that the "ONUS" that you so coldly point out will never be realize.
Tom Tun
Who do you want to see win in this coming conflict?
Between SPDC and the Ethnic group ( Chinese by proxy)
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16667
Be honest.
|
|
 |
|
Garrett knows:
Bhuddism
Garrett knows:
burmese from non Burmese
Garett Knows
ALl those who are here is for the people or themselves
Garrett Knows:
He knows.
Will garrett with his vast amount of knowledge please answer my 3 simple but serious questions here
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=16589
I won't mind even if he say "I don't know!"
Obviously his concern expressed here about the Burmese people will dictate that he must answer these questions.
|
|
 |
Garrett Wrote: |
31/08/2009 |
|
The most relevant comment on this page is the observation by VICTOR all the way at the bottom: "The onus is on all Burmese, not foreigners."
I see many comments here by those who pose as Burmese citizens, and if they are, they represent a prime example of Burmese apathy towards the suffering of Burmese ethnic minority citizens.
It is YOUR apathetic nonchalant views towards THEIR oppression and persecution which empowers the SPDC criminals keep YOU down.
Yes, in the cities, unless YOU are a businessman loyal to the SPDC, YOU are poor and have little hope because greed and apathy only infects YOU and blinds YOU from the truth.
But if YOU are in the ethnic homelands, YOU are the property of the SPDC and YOU have NO HOPE because your brothers in the cities, the foreign politicians and activists, and the world media allow YOU to suffer the yoke and whip of the regime while THEY worry about making more money.
The yoke and whip will find YOUR children in the cities, just wait! |
|
 |
|
We, Myanmar people, need people in the US government like Webb who cares and has a strong interest in Myanmar. I'm very grateful that he wrote this article in NY Times to bring people's attention to our issue. China is taking tremendous advantage of energy resources from Myanmar which is not going to stop any time soon, despite the West's economic sanctions. Things need to change from status quo!
U Zawta said "Webb is now despised by the people of Burma". These are very strong words that do not represent opinions of Burmese like me. I think it's a good idea for the US government to open dialog with Myanmar and begin some humanitarian projects as a start. |
|
 |
|
| I too was sad to see the senator (whose 2006 campaign I supported) making overtures to the criminal, illegitimate SPDP. I also hope that he wasn't motivated primarily to get John Yettaw released: that guy is an idiot. |
|
 |
Tom Tun Wrote: |
28/08/2009 |
|
| This is a great article. I couldn't agree more. Senator Webb is a corrupted politician of the West. He used to be against women serving in the armed forces in the US while Ronald Regan was in power. Now look at the US arm forces, which has women serving alongside men. Sen. Webb is opposite thinker and his vision is often funny. He should be a comedian instead of a politician. |
|
 |
Peter Sang Wrote: |
28/08/2009 |
|
Dear U Pyinya Zawta,
I understand how you feel by learning the US Senator Webb's article appeared in the Washington Post, and thoroughly analyzed by experts and politicians alike. My stand is that we are totally wrong if we regard Mr. Webb as a supporter or even a well wisher of the regime because I see from his writing that his concern is for the well being and freedom of the Burmese people. He of course appeared to be very careful when it comes to the direct condemnation which will surely lead to more restriction from the junta as they did to UN General Secretary, Ban. We must not forget, whether we like it or not, that the power holder in Burma at the moment is the junta. This is the fact that no one can deny, and that is the reason why we, the opposition, can do very little. Let's keep trying while we are ready to be thankful to the outside world who want to help our course. We should not be a rigid opposition power, we should rather be flexible as Aung San Suu Kyi keeps saying! Thanks |
|
 |
|
Dear Sayadaw,
With due respect, you can see only one side of the coin and refuse to look at the other side. Simply, your concluding remark is very unprofessional, unethical and disrespectful.
If we look back at Gen. Khin Nyunt's "Open Market" era, the SLORC/SPDC was almost collapsed. The main reason, as we all know, is that most of the military leaders know how to shoot the target with guns but do not know how to manage a rapidly growing economy.
We, the people of Burma could not remove the military junta from power since 1988 due to many reasons. One of the reasons is that the majority of us want to do the rest of the world as the way we do or want. Unfortunately, this is not the way international politics work.
Senator Webb's initiative must be accepted by the people from Burma as one of the "alternatives" to solve the Burma's problems and all the people from Burma should say "thanks" to him, if we are polite people.
You must do the way I want is, of course, dictator-ism. |
|
 |
Salai Biak Wrote: |
27/08/2009 |
|
(1)Pyinya Zawta, it's not only your country. It's also my country and all Burmese suffering people's country. You cannot represent us, even me.
(2)You may feel good enjoying your New York apartment, while there are thousands of suffering Burmese people inside the country.
(3) By the way, why are you involved in politics? Are you really a true Buddhist monk, or bogus? A Western tool? Do you earn a huge salary from spreading this nonsense?
(4)Webb's approach is the best of the century! We all applaud...
(5)this is a new dawn for US-Burma diplomatic relations, good for both sides as well as suffering people. |
|
 |
EarleyDaysYet Wrote: |
27/08/2009 |
|
| I am so sick of ignorant Americans making sweeping, gross generalizations re international events/situations of which they know nothing. May peace and justice come to Burma. |
|
 |
|
Another obviously misguided SPDC hater. If a foreigner who advocates the overthrowing of SPDC, no matter the cost to the people, would the author be so rude to that foreigner?
Obviously not from the description of Hillary Clinton by the author, who is pro DASSK!
Any different approach will immediately incur accusations such as "condescending", "manipulative", "outrageous","anti-Buddhist monk" "driving a wedge", etc.
Whose side is Pyinya Zawta on? Such strong words against someone who might just be a catalyst is a very unbecoming characteristic for an advocate for Burmese people, let alone a Burmese. |
|
 |
|
| He just tried to lobby for the SPDC and he is not a genuine friend of Burma's people. |
|
 |
tocharian Wrote: |
27/08/2009 |
|
| Webb was there because the US wants to prevent Burma from becoming a total Chinese colony. Sanctions were leading to that! Anyway, I don't know of any "pro-democracy opposition" from Burma operating from China. BCP used to do that! So what is better for democracy in Burma? A Chinese-controlled regime OR a more Westward-leaning partially democratic country (like India or Thailand). I don't trust China (including Singapore) and Korea (both). China is a one-party state and their greedy materialistic lifestyle would destroy both the culture and the natural environment of Burma. Opposition groups have to "rethink" their strategy, since the US is doing it. Isn't the NCGUB supported by the US and Norway? |
|
 |
Kyi May Kaung (Ph.D.) Wrote: |
26/08/2009 |
|
I agree with U Pyinya Zawta.
Initially, "Westerners did not remain in Burma" because in 1962, Ne Win deported all foreign born, including "Indians" and "Chinese" who had been there generations, but held FRCs or Foreigners Registration Certificates. All property was taken by the Revolutionary Council.
Only a systemic reform (read regime change) will improve Burmese conditions.
The anti-sanctions lobby "focuses" on getting sanctions lifted, which will mainly benefit the oligarch junta leaders. They own most of the businesses in Burma and control the economy in other ways.
Webb's arguments are extremely shallow.
The insidious "lift sanctions (gradually)" suggestion has even worked its way into the exile government's transition plan.
I urge everyone to read carefully and look deeper.
In my opinion no one can tango with SPDC without getting bear-slapped. Bears are strong, have claws.
|
|
 |
|
| This piece is brilliant. But Webb just had his assignment done. He had no choice but to sweeten up the regime. The sanctions haven’t worked as expected. Even the UN itself ended its efforts to unlock our country’s political stalemate calamitously. The onus is on all Burmese, not foreigners. |
|
 |
|
|