The Union Perspective: Blue Print for Standing Together

[Avnish Jolly]

The Union Perspective: Blue Print for Standing Together
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/08/19/union-perspective-blue-print-standing-together

Sat, 2011-08-20 00:14 — editor
Article
By Kanbawza Win
Burma has been a pariah nation since 1988, shun by the civilized
international community. The Burmese army is reviled domestically and
around the world. This is galling to the men in uniforms and naturally
these Generals want to sit smart in the community of the civilized
nations, in spite of their gross human rights violations.

International Scene

The country had missed a chance to chair of ASEAN in 2006, because of
strong international objections led by Western countries, when the
systematic use of rape by the Burmese soldiers scrutinized and
confirmed by International Organizations and Foreign Governments,
couple with the attempted assassination of the Noble Peace Laureate at
Depaeyin, which marked the most atrocious chapter of contemporary
history of Burma, has become the most notorious country in the world.

Hence the new administration of the Junta has embarked on the public
relations drive aimed at shedding a reputation synonymous with human
rights violations and abuse. Despite assertions from Naypyidaw that
Burma is progressing in the right direction, it remains Southeast
Asia’s least developed countries, and ranks 132 out of 169 countries
on the UN Human Development Index and various assessments brand the
country as a top source for rapes, refugees, drugs and human
trafficking, hindering international aid for refugees, all of which
have become a sensitive blot on the region’s reputation.

Now, another chance for Burma comes out in 2014. Again this time the
rape of the Kachin women, authentically proved by the international
organizations and strongly condemn by the US Congress couple with the
massive child soldiers and staging a sham election with a dubious
constitution, not to mention holding more than 2,000 political
prisoners would be an embarrassment for the region to be its
chairperson.

In order to appease these crimes and to gain legitimacy
internationally, as well as to gain credit among its own people, the
regime had invited ASEAN Chairperson. Marty Natalegawa, the
Indonesia's Foreign Minister to visit Naypyidaw. But he had made it
clear that he will go only if Burma makes a satisfactory progress
towards resolving the issues, such as dialogue with pro-democracy
leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, ceasefire with the ethnic nationalities
and the releasing of more than 2,000 political prisoners.

Hence to prove it, at least cosmetically, the Thein Sein
Administration has grudgingly, if not cautiously, contacted the
Lady.via the information minister. The irony is that, if it is
according to the laws of the Junta, NLD is an illegal association, and
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is persona non grata. Why contact now? The raison
d’être is crystal clear; it wants to show to ASEAN and the world that
there is already a dialogue. Then reluctantly it held a cease fire
talks with the Kachin, just to prove to the World Community that they
are having a dialogue, when in fact, the regime is not sincere by
dispatching only a junior officer which authentically proved that it
is reluctant to find a negotiated settlement. The high water mark was
by its refusal to dialogue with the Shan, Karenni and the Karen. In a
way they are up to their old tricks of divide and rule policy on the
ethnic nationalities.
.
When it comes to a sensitive topic of releasing 2000 plus political
prisoners held in inhumane and harsh conditions, it is synchronising
with some pro-engagement, anti-sanctions apologists and members of the
international community in the form of a partial political prisoner
release as pretext for a “positive development” to sell Western
governments on the idea of lifting sanctions and dropping the call for
a UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on human rights abuses in Burma.

The pro-engagement, anti-sanctions diplomats, business persons and
international NGOs especially led by the Nazi ancestors, are now
attempting vigorously to persuade the country’s new quasi-civilian
government to give them something, to show that they can be used to
argue for reduced sanctions and the opportunity to invest in Burma, in
order to open up a new market to exploit the country`s natural and
human resources, at a time when Europe is experiencing a financial
crisis.

It has been proved that behind diplomatic doors, the pro-engagement,
anti-sanctions forces are asking for the release of 200-300 political
prisoners all at once, and the regime relented by releasing one
prisoner a day. In another three months when about 100 or so of its
least-threatening prisoners have been released, then it will have
create a dilemma for those who genuinely care about democracy and
human rights in Burma. Simultaneously because the thaw relations
between the Thein Sein administration and NLD there is a possibility
that a fraction of the 2000 plus political prisoners will be released,
now that regime construe that the ethnic nationalities poses as enemy
No 1 instead of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Perhaps the Generals have figured out her popularity as a pop star,
instead of a revolutionary figure that will inspire the masses to
serious and sustained revolt and have reworked their approach to
containing her just like, what the Thai army is doing to Yinluck
Shinawahtra. Obviously, anyone resisting rewarding the release of
prisoners with meaningful carrots—such as reduced sanctions or support
for the award of the ASEAN chair to Burma in 2014—will be accused of
being a “stubborn radical” who is unwilling to compromise. The people
of Burma and the international community should see this nasty trick
and manoeuvre. The international community must know to allow the
prisoner as human capital, bartering away as objects, some holding
while others releasing, in order to obtain benefits will allow the
regime to perpetuate its oppression of the Burmese people and to
benefit the West is something to think of?

Even though any political prisoner release is welcome by anybody, the
international community should not allow its own economic motives to
cause it to fall into the regime’s trap and give away the leverage of
sanctions and a CoI at the cost of the peoples of Burma, before all of
Burma’s 2,000 plus political prisoners have all been released and
genuine democracy has been restored. So far the only truly significant
development has been the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, that was
counterbalanced by barring her from participating in the election and
the continue crackdown on ethnic nationalities. Can all these be
counted as small and positive changes to release the punitive actions
as the apologist claims?

National Scene

As far as the domestic scene is concern, the writings on the wall is
clear, the regime’s propensity for violence will neither bring
national reconciliation nor will it lead Burma to democracy; it will
only lead to Myanmarnization over the non Myanmar and deepen the
enduring political grievances of systemic alienation and suppression
felt by ethnic nationalities. The ethnic nationalities have no choice
left to counter it democratically but resort to taking up arms as it
had done for decades to rightfully defend their national birthright of
ethnic equality and self-determination within their own territory.
More than ever before, the changing political trends and drama
unfolding inside Burma have demanded that leaders of ethnic-based
armed opposition groups stand together in their resistance of armed
struggle against successive military regimes. The political stakes are
too high for non-cooperation. Knowing the potential power of their
collective force, they need to fight their common enemy under the
banners of ‘we suffer together; we will fight together; we die
together; we shared together’.

Previously due to the corrosion of the internal cohesion among its
members and lack of commitment in adhering to their common strategy,
the military regime had succeeded in effectively undermining the front
by persuading some members of the front to enter into the ceasefire
agreements individually. Once, one main member party signs a peace
deal with the military regime, it enables the Burmese army to break
the internal cohesion and unity of the ethnic nationalities, thus
subsequently weakening the collective movement.

Now over the years, understanding has reached that the collective
forces of the armed group pose a serious threat to its grip on power,
successive military regimes have been employing the strategy of
‘divide and rule’ in dismantling one by one of the collective forces
of opposition armed groups. While many of Burma’s watchers wonder
about the future of armed struggle in Burma, the recent re-unification
of ethnic-based armed organizations under the umbrella of the United
Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC) reinvigorates the hope of many in
the ongoing ethno- democratic movements. The creation of the UNFC once
again signifies the realization that ‘the ethnic resistance forces are
more powerful and stronger when they fight collectively, rather than
fighting separately without cooperation, what in Burmese we say Nwa
Kwe Kyar Kaik . Remembering that countless innocent lives have been
sacrificed with the goals of reclaiming their inalienable rights to
self-determination, equality, and universal human rights within the
ethnic ancestral land, the current and future leadership of ethnic
nationalities must attempt to minimize making a collateral strategic
blunder in negotiating with the cunning, crafty regime one by one.

Indeed, the notion that we need each other and will stand together has
long being embraced in 1976 under the banner of National Democratic
Front (NDF). In this case it is worth mentioning that Salai Za Ceu
Lian, a Chin scholar had drawn two explicit lessons from the NDF’s
experience. First is not to allow the economic and social incentives
to outweigh their political rights. Second, is not to enter into a
ceasefire agreement with the military regime individually and
separately, that would pave the way for the military regime to
dismantle one by one again by the regime divide and rule policy. In
this aspect the Kachin, which has the most educated leaders, had done
a commendable job in demanding that there should be a nation-wide
ceasefire and others should follow its example. It is for the Karenni,
Shan, Mon, Chin and the Karen or any breakaway party to follow suit.
These are the pillars of success for the Non Myanmar whose combine
population is far more than the Myanmar.

As seen the regime had refused to have a dialogue with leaders of the
UNFC as a common body and have pressured the Thai Intelligence to
close the UNFC Office in Chiang Mai and more of this can follow suit,
as only then the Thais can exploit Burma’s natural and human resources
now that Thaksin’s influence is gaining ground. This clearly indicates
that the Burmese regime is not sincere and does not want a negotiated
peace. Vice-President Tin Aung Myint Oo claimed Naypyidaw would
welcome peace talks with the ethnic nationalities fighting the
government is just a bluff. The authenticated proof of it is that
fighting in the countryside goes on unabated especially in Karen,
Kachin and Shan states. La Nan, joint-secretary of the KIO, said that
is just a propaganda statement which has arisen due to international
pressure on Burma.For far too long, the Junta had dictated the terms
and conditions of ceasefire agreements in a way that serves its own
interest of retaining power.

Pro-democracy Scene

If all the ethnic nationalities could unite, should we leave out the
Myanmar ethnic groups? Are all the Myanmar practicing Myanmarnization
policy? In other words are all the Myanmar bad? These are the basic
questions which every ethnic leader, nationalist and patriot should
ask himself, now that there is a possibility of thaw relations between
the pro democratic forces and the quasi civilian government. No doubt
there are genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar and the Mahar Myanmar that are
that wittingly or unwittingly encouraging the Myanmarnization
philosophy and programme and even among the Burmese Diaspora who now
are holding influential and high positions especially in the media.

One must be able to differentiate between the two. No doubt the
Pyidoungsu Myanmar are the followers of Bogyoke Aung San particularly
her daughter, U Win Tin, Ko Ko Gyi and the likes but not all the NLDs
are Pyidaungsu Myanmar as a great majority of them, especially the
retired generals, are Mahar Myanmar, who construe that ethnic
nationalities are all rebels bent on balkanization. One can easily
distinguished by their actions and their philosophy especially in the
interpretation of the Burmese History. For instance, the military
leaders and the great majority of the Mahar Myanmar share a belief
that the present day Burma developed in a linear fashion straight from
the founding of the first Burmese kingdom in 1044 AD under king
Anawrahta. Only the British colonization of the Myanmar Kingdom
disrupted this historical development. They believe in the accounts of
their mighty, expansionistic imperialist empires (one of the proof is
the three mammoth statues in Naypyidaw) with subordinate alliances
made up of multi-ethnic and multi-language communities, including the
Shan, the Arakanese, the Mons, and so on, encompassing the present day
Burma and its political boundaries and, at times, stretching into
neighbouring India and Thailand, others are their subordinates and
hence should not be treated as equal but above the ethnic
nationalities.

On the other hand the ethnic nationalities and the Pyidoungsu Myanmar
believes that -

"The Union of Burma is a nation-state of diverse ethnic nations
(ethnic nationalities or nationalities), founded in 1947 at the
Panglong Conference by pre-colonial independent ethnic nationalities
such as the Chin, the Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Rakhine
(Arakan), Myanmar (Burman) and Shan based on the principle of
equality. As it was founded by formerly independent peoples in 1947
through an agreement, the boundaries of the Union of Burma today are
not historical."

This is a divergent - and obviously irreconcilable interpretation and
will clearly different between the Mahar Myanmar and the Pyidoungsu
Myanmar. The latter and the ethnic nationalities who are the genuine
followers ofBogyoke Aung San can vividly recalls that in the
submission of the Union constitution to the AFPFL at Jubilee Hall on
May 1947, our beloved leader himself has said.

“When we build our new Burma, shall we build it as a Union or a
Unitary State? In my opinion it will not be feasible to set up a
Unitary State. We must set up a Union with a properly regulated
provision to set up the rights of the ethnic nationalities.”

But the Myanmar historians never pick up this phrase. Even the arch
supporter of the Burmese Junta Dr Maung Maung points out that,

“The Union States should have their own separate constitutions, their
own organ of states, viz parliament, government and Judiciary.”

On the eve on the historic Panglong Conference to be exact on 11th Frb.
1947, Bogyoke Aung San said,

“The dream of a unified and free Burma has always haunted me. We who
are gathered here tonight are engaged in the pursuit of the same
dream.. We have in Burma many indigenous peoples, the Karen, the
Kachin, the Shan, the Chin, the Burman and others. In other countries
too there are many indigenous peoples, many races. Thus races do not
have rigid boundaries...If we want the nation to prosper, we must pool
our resources, manpower, wealth, skills and work together. If we are
divided, the Karen, the Shan, the Kachin, the Chin, the Burman
(Myanmar), the Mon and the Arakanese, each pulling in a different
direction, the Union will be torn, and we will come to grief. Let us
come and work together.”

This is the essence of coming together but as everybody knows it
Bogyoke Aung San and his key leaders were assassinated on 9th July
1948 and it was U Chan Htun the only proficient person whom the
leaders had put their trust on him, shows his Mahar Bamar mentality by
betraying Bogyoke Aung San and the ethnic nationalities of Burma by
completely changing his vision made it a unitary state under the
directions of U Nu.

Hence an average Myanmar view the ethnic nationality as somewhat the
necessary evil of the country where he is destined to live forever and
that it is his unbounded duty to lead him to civilization He/she must
be showed the real civilization of the Myanmar people and finally lead
him to Theravada Buddhism on to Nirvana. Whereas the ethnic
nationalities view that the Myanmar people spearheaded by the Burmese
army is still uncivilized as shown by their actions all these half a
century especially in pillaging and raping of women, not to mention
tens of thousands of child soldiers and killing of children and
Buddhist monks. They were horrified that even now they are behaving in
such a way should be brought back to civilization; slowly educate them
to bring them back to the civilized international community.

History cannot be undone, but the point which I am emphasizing is that
it will be a full mistake and a major blunder, if the ethnic
nationalities did not put in the genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar in their
band wagon of the country’s epic struggle for the ultimate battle.
Without the Pyidoungsu Myanmar, the ethnic nationalities will be
building the Union of Ethnic Nationalities with Burmese as a lingua
franca at its best and as its worst will be instead of the Union of
Burma will be Balkanization. None of which is acceptable to the
peoples of Burma or to the international community. Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi call for the Second Panglong Conference, .not only to complete the
unfinished work of her martyred father but is also potentially laying
the groundwork for genuine security and economic prosperity in the
border areas, where most ethnic nationalities live, is a clear clarion
call which every ethno-democratic forces should lend a ear to stay
united with her through thick and thin.

No doubt the flames of ethno-nationalisms of Burma will continue to
burn, given the fact that many ethnic communities have been deprived
of equality, politically, culturally and economically under the
Myanmar -dominated rule for so long. But it must be remembered that
the distrust and fear of the Myanmar race groups throughout the
country began long before the country gain independence. Even though
the Pyidoungsu Myanmar may feel some ideological affinity with their
military rulers, more than our cosmopolitan, "enlighten ethnic
nationalities” who speak a language littered with words like
"federalism" or "self-determination" their reasoning is sound under
the guidance of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi when juxtaposed with the
ideological discourse of human rights and democracy with the world
thinking in this globalized and digital world. Even now the Thein Sein
administration is using his major trick by neither calling back the
students and the Burmese intelligentsia in Diaspora to come back
without general amnesty nor releasing the existing prisoners. But we
should know that without the genuine Pyidoungsu Myanmar and vice versa
without the ethnic nationalities our goal is unattainable. It is a
MUST that the two will have to stick together.

Last but not the least is not to forget the Buddhist Clergy whose
moral force and stand for justice and truth have shaken the Junta. The
Shan, Arakanese, Mon and the majority of the Karen are still adherence
of this faith and they have well organized groups both inside and
outside the country. We should also recollect of what Bogyoke Aung San
that one religion, one race and one language had gone obsolete.

“Religion is a matter of individual conscience, while politics is
social science. We must see to it that the individual enjoys his
rights, including the rights to freedom of religious beliefs and
worship. We must draw clear lines between politics and religion
because the two are not the same thing. If we mix religion and
politics then we offend the spirit of religion itself.”

Hence let us not commit another crime by leaving the well meaning
Pyidougsu Myanmar and the religious orders into our United Force for
100% success as the ultimate battles closes in.

ASEAN and Asian Scene

Part of the Truman doctrine of the Cold War period was creating a
string of Defence Treaty Organizations (NATO in Europe, CENTO, Bagdad
Pact in the Middle East, FETO in the Far East) and SEATO or the Manila
Pact was born in 1954 including Thailand and Philippines to contain
the socialist countries of Russia and China. Once it became obsolete
it was replaced by ASEAN in 1967 by newly independent nations like
Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore joined by Philippines and Thailand but
it was not a defence pact but rather an economic entity. Since then,
membership has expanded to include all the ten Southeast Asian
countries and aims at the the acceleration of economic growth, social
progress, cultural development, the protection of the peace and
stability of the region, and to provide opportunities for member
countries to discuss differences peacefully.

Due to the economic nature of ASEAN, the Constructive Engagement
Policy on Burma was adopted when she was in trouble, just to exploit
the country’s natural and human resources to their benefit .ASEAN for
years held the position that the crisis in Burma is a domestic issue;
and closes their eyes to the fact that people are fleeing their homes
and spilling into neighbouring territory. It does nothing about the
situation and according to the guidelines of the Constructive
Engagement Policy continued investing in the many mega-projects inside
the country and has no qualms about giving the chair to Burma.

But the association’s most influential Western partners and the
civilized international community have said the case must be decided
based on Burma's political and economic reforms and the region’s
reputation and credibility would be greatly harmed by supporting a
member country as its leader that promotes dictatorship and the
violation of basic human rights. Lessons from ASEM (Asia Europe
Meeting where EU cancelled because of Burma) must be heeded and could
not afford a break with the West

Besides as an emerging economic region with a long history of
political instability, ASEAN governments have increasingly spoken of
their desire for a leadership that can tackle the manifold social,
political and economic problems they collectively face – a call that
gains pertinence as borders become more porous, trade grows and an
ASEAN ‘community’ blossoms. They also realise that in an apparent
attempt to project a reformist image, the quasi civilian government
has sought the help of the International Monetary Fund in modernizing
its currency exchange system and have withdrew foreign exchange
certificates (FECs) and is craftily using Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to
seek normalization of their deepening and constitutionalized military -
business class to be acceptable in terms of international relations,

On the other hand the Arab Spring has blossom and Southeast itself is
changing, Philippines and Indonesia has become full blown democracy
and one party dictatorship under the smokescreen of democracy as in
Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore are waning, Vietnam and Cambodia have
adopted market economy and the leaders of ASEAN are now plodding with
the idea of whether it is time for ASEAN to assist Burma in securing
justice and if possible to stop human rights violations. Of course it
can easily do this by bringing the legal process to bear on the
perpetrators and providing relief and comfort to victim’s families and
those who suffer in natural catastrophes. This would be a huge step in
the resolution of one of the world’s most shameful conflicts between a
government and its people.

The people of Burma and the international community has learnt that
the Burmese gridlock is not a horizontal one with one ethnic
nationalities or party fighting one another but all the pro democratic
forces and the ethnic nationalities are fighting against the military
Junta and its accomplice. The generals still perceive themselves as
good, family men trying their level best to defend Myanmar's
sovereignty and territorial integrity. They view themselves as the
saviour of the nation from potential Balkanization and keepers of law
and order. Virtually all of them are insular, are stuck in the old
father-knows-best mentality and demand complete and utter loyalty.
While the rank and file live rather poor lives, not dissimilar to the
bulk of the population, a handful of top generals live extremely
lavishly by local standards.

The Burmese army view that ordinary people and civil servants of the
country live more easy-going lives. They are undisciplined and have
many leisure hours. They do business just to enrich themselves. When
the army cracks down on peaceful demonstrators, they viewed them as
lazy opportunists who are asking for rights without working hard and
sacrificing like them The army as a whole works hard whereas others
don`t do.. The soldiers work industriously and are disciplined and for
this they are simply reaping the advantages from performance. The end
result is that soldiers believe they have the sole right to hold state
power due to their hard work and sacrifices and could not comprehend
of why these foreign countries are always asking the army to give up
power. No doubt foreigners work hard and think smarter than lazy
people of Burma, and these are the reasons developed countries are
ahead of Burma seems to be the Burmese army`s logic and rationale.

In other words the Burmese army in a way blame the people for failing
to develop the country. When ordinary people go abroad to seek job
opportunity, they see them as betraying the country and opting for a
foreign one. Not a single general or soldier had the slightest idea
that the country could not move forward because of the army’s heavy
handed control. The Burmese army propaganda encourages a blind racist
nationalism, full of references to protecting the Myanmar ethnic race
leaving out the other ethnic nationalities. This implies that if the
Myanmar do not oppress other nationalities then they find themselves
be oppressed. For them national reconciliation means assimilation and
preventing disintegration of the Union of Burma, all the ethnic races
must be assimilated into the Myanmar race including their language,
culture and values. With such kind of mind set it is still to be seen
how will ASEAN respond to be eligible for the chairperson?

Will ASEAN’s support for the call of the international community and
the United Nations to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the
crimes against humanity which is the only way to achieve the ultimate
goal or will they prove it that ASEAN chairperson to be the highest
stage of this Constructive Engagement is still to be seen?

Given the staunch political support and unprincipled business dealings
from Beijing's bogus neo-communists with their unquenchable thirst for
Burma's energy resources, as well as the support of the veto-wielding
Russia, the international community has so far not been powerful
enough to either strong-arm or persuade the regime to find a peaceful
resolution to their self-perpetuated war against their own citizens.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s focus on a more durable and equitable
resolution of Burma's festering interethnic relations should pique
interest from Kunming to Zhongnanhai and make the men on the dragon
throne sit up. By proposing to reopen negotiations on a new Second
Panglong Agreement, modeled on the 1947 pact would be in China's
interests, since it would resolve the dilemma arising from its present
conflicted role. Beijing poses as both the protector of ethnic Chinese
minority peoples on the Burmese side of the border, and also the
political protector and economic enabler of their tormentors.

It can be seen that the Chinese government's hopes that the recent
elections would help move the country in that direction have proven to
be illusory, as armed conflict has resumed in the wake of widespread
disenfranchisement and continued state violence in ethnic areas. This
unstable situation has major implications for China's quest to exploit
Burma's natural resources, as both petroleum pipelines and major
hydroelectric projects traverse or are located in ethnic homelands.
These projects have already been the site of anti-Chinese violence. If
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can succeed where the Junta's coercive approach
has failed, China would be one of the biggest beneficiaries.

Another factor is the Junta's poor response to HIV/AIDS (usually name
as SLORC’s disease for when the country first open its door HIV/AID is
the first to come in) epidemic and the nature of cross-border trade
between China and Burma, public health experts and epidemiologists
have tracked a vector of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases begins
in Burma have sweeps into China's Yunnan province—home of China's
highest HIV/AIDS infection rates—before spreading out into the rest of
the country. On the other hand Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's visit to an HIV/
AIDS clinic in Rangoon and her exhortation to do more for those
suffering from Burma's epidemic will definitely also a benefit to
China.

Now that China is has a potential to be the next super power, at least
economically, (America’s biggest foreign creditor, holding $1tn of
debt) where even the Vice President Joe Baden has to kow tow to the
next generation of the men on the Dragon throne, that have a lot of
brains will have to think twice for the continue support of the
Junta’s accomplice. If the ethno democratic forces remain united they
would really be an alternative to the Junta and definitely will get
the support from the emerging economic powers of China, India and
Japan. Hence it is high time for the ethnic nationalities (UNFC), Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi’s party and the clergies to be united in one voice.

References:

Lian,Salai Za Ceu In Chinland Guardian “United we Stand, Divided We
Fall.” 2nd Aug 2011

Ibid

See Bogyoke Aung San’s speech pp 306-307

U Maung Maung Burmese National Minorities 1940-1989- p170

See the speeches of Aung San also reprinted in The New Panglong
Initiative, Rebuilding the Union of Burma p 13 by Chao Tzang and LH
Sakong

See Contemporary of the speech of Aung San delivered on 20th Jan. 1946

Ibid.

Zarni,Maung Dr.; Monks Vs. Generals Opinion Asia Sept 2007

Wall Street Journal 25th Nov.2010

Ibid