NOVEMBER 1, 2010
by peacerunning
Nai Banya Hongsar : Editor’s Note: We would like to introduce our readers to the third installment in our “Burma Tranformed”. In this installment our writer discusses the role of Burmese monks in Burma’s future national reconciliation process.
Buddhist monks played central roles in Burmese history both before and after the country became independent from colonial rule; for this reason Burma’s military junta’s appalling treatment of monks should be reviewed by the international community. Many monks have been killed and imprisoned in recent years for their political opinions. Nation-building in Burma cannot be accomplished without the contribution of religion leaders like Buddhist monks. Buddhist monks are the sons of million of Burmese parents. They have the right to have their own opinions on the social issues that impact their parents and siblings and they also have the moral responsibility as monks to protect private citizens from wrong doing.
This essay will examine the military junta’s treatment of monks, many of whom have been vibrant political activists in Burma, between 1988 and 2010. The appropriate role of monks in Burmese politics will be covered. I will explore the role of Buddhist monks as mediators during a reconciliation between democratic forces, including ethnic leaders and the ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).
Monks have long held an important role in Burma’s politics. Buddhist monks served the best interests of kings and the nation as far back as the 10th century. Burma became a Buddhist community under Mon monks in the 7th century. Monks have a long history of being victims of political strife in Burma. In 1757 Burmese kings overthrew the Mon empire, and brutally slaughtered over three thousand Mon monks in a ‘Fire Burn”, in a group near Rangoon. The current name of the location is called ‘Thin Gyun Chun – the island of burning robes”.
In the old days, the monks who rose against the king could be disrobed or deported to a rural place as punishment. In these modern days, the Burmese government views monks as enemies of the state, and has treated them accordingly. Despite the fact that the majority of monks have been monks since childhood, the military junta seems to regard them as political activists, rather than disciplined monks who have been learning and teaching the Buddhist religion for many years. Rangoon and Mandalay -based senior monks have been playing two roles in Burmese society. The roles they occupy are that of the heads of the Buddhist religion in Burma, and as mentors to young monks those who see themselves as part of a democratic change in the country. The disciplined monks have many times keep silent about the military government’s abuse of monks, due to fear of losing their positions and status. The current military junta has appointed local and national representatives of the monks, who oversee the daily business of the monks and temples. In other words, the ruling military has ‘shut the mouths’ of these senior monks who have moral authority in Burmese society.
Monks have held key roles in mediation since ancient times. When national reconciliation in Burma does occur, senior monks, along Burmese leaders and ethnic minority leaders will play key roles in the reconciliation process.
The Monks and a Deeper National Reconciliation:
In the time of a reconciliation, Burma’s monks can play key roles, if they subscribe to the laws of Buddha that mandate that monks serve the people, not just the government. The senior monks could play central roles in reconciliation by not siding with any political groups. The western leaders and policy makers for a new Burma need to review the implications of showing disrespect to the monks when they begin engaging in a future national reconciliation in Burma. Transitional justice in Burma cannot get very far unless good relations between political forces, both internationally and inside Burma, and senior monks are maintained
The main issue that will confront pro-democracy forces in Burma in a time of reconciliation is whether the Burmese community can grant amnesty to the cruel military leaders who have killed so many of their countrymen in the last 20 years, and imprisoned over 3 thousand political activists, including junior and senior monks. This confronting issue must be addressed by the monks. The monks must protect all the lives of current leaders in Burma if a true national reconciliation is sought in the future; the foundations of Buddhism dictate that the military leaders alone must bear the penance for the wrongdoing of the last sixty years. Therefore, all political leaders are encouraged to acquire a sound knowledge of Buddhist principles from the senior monks for better relations among them during and after the national reconciliation.
The United Nations and its good office and staff who are working on Burma should be proud to be supporters of Burma to transit a democratic nation. The International Centre for Transitional Justice or (ICTJ) has also earned some credits on its legal frameworks to solve Burma’s crisis. However, both agencies have failed to acknowledge the potential role of the senior monks in a reconciliation process; the monks are the ones who have access to the senior military leaders and top leaders within the National League for Democracy. Some foreign policy makers and even the UN’s Special Envoy on Burma have under-estimated the political capacities of senior monks and their ability to convince the senior military leaders to begin national reconciliation and mature trust. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has outlined his vision of a stronger UN for a better world, saying “I am determined to make progress on the pressing issues of our time, step by step, by building on achievements along the way, working with Member States and civil society.” He can embrace his vision in Burma by joining forces with the country’s monks who are the leaders in Burma’s civil society in terms of education, community development, and cultural orientation.
In March 2003, representatives from ICTJ, Louis N. Bickford held a forum on Burma’s national reconciliation in Bangkok with representatives from democratic forces and ethnic minorities. This writer raised the key question of whether the ICTJ would engage with the senior monks’ community for this reconciliation process. It has been nearly 10 years, and the role of monks in the process of national reconciliation has not yet bee further explored.
Potentially, monks who take an active role in Burmese politics will be seen as hypocrites by the traditional Buddhist community. Such a change will be un-welcomed by conservatives but appreciated by progressive leaders. The monks could use different languages and creative methods for dealing with non-religious affairs. As part of their vows, monks already serve the best interests of the nation and the people, and move peace to end the suffering of all human beings. The monks understand the concept of social and political conflicts in Burma. They have been maintaining the Buddhist pratices for over 2 thousand years in Burma, despite the plights of past and present political crises. The British attempted to dismantle the roles of the monks in social and political life in the country in the 18th century, but they resisted to the British by non-violent means. The role of the monks in social, political and religious affairs cannot be separated from nation-building in Burma. It is time for Burma’s policy makers reassess their strategy.
National reconciliation is a healing process. The monks would be the best counselors, who are the experts in healing in the Burmese community. Political healing is not strange field to the monks. The issues are on the mental side. They monk can treat the country’s mental health better than the layman. Political reconciliation would be a test for the monks, whether they are the masters of peace and reconcilability. After twenty years of stalemate, Burma deserves a chance to solve its own problems with its own methods. At the same time, international leaders from each country must guarantee that they will be supportive of this internal movement towards a peaceful Burma and a prosperous nation in the 21st century, post-reconciliation.
The State Peace and Development Council, the current military junta, must cease any oppression of the junior monks who express their opinions under the rule of laws. The government must cease to use troops against monks, and stop giving orders to kill monks who dare to protest in the street, as it did during the Saffron Revolution. The monks’ community will be the community most likely to grant amnesty to the cruel military junta. They military generals must pay any sufficient compensation for those who lost lives during twenty years of democratic movements by the monks and other activists. A common principle of truth and reconciliation must be upheld by both sides. The monks’ community and other democratic forces, especially students’ leagues, should compromise with the military general under the guidance of the senior monks for this process. It is a painful journey for all parties. Forgiveness is the highest quality of mankind. The Buddhist community in Burma will be the champion on the world’s stage if they bring about an endpoint to the country’s suffering by solving Burma’s issues without violence. Violence is a sin that Buddhist community does not accept.
In conclusion, the role of the Buddhist monks in preparation for, and engaging in, the national reconciliation process is crucial for the future progression of Burmese politics. The political participation of monks would be mutually beneficial for all stakeholders in the reconciliation process, including the military ruling elites. The monks’ role is vital in this critical time of mental and political reconciliation and transition.
Short URL: http://monnews.org/?p=1244
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/buddhist-monks%E2%80%99-role-in-burma%E2%80%99s-national-reconciliation-by-nai-banya-hongsar/
Monday, 1 November 2010
1700 villagers join anti-election protests in Karen and Mon State
NOVEMBER 1, 2010
by peacerunning
PICS by Thwathiko
HURFOM, Mon State and Karen State: In a significant display of anti-election sentiment, three communities in Kyainnseikyi Township and Ye Township have held large anti-election rallies within two days of each other. According to participants, all three rallies were held because none of the communities had heard of any previous instances of open protests to raise awareness about ongoing election-related abuses villages in their area had experienced. Protesters hoped that, despite the risks, because of their actions other communities would more openly display their discontent with the State Peace and Development Council’s (SPDC’s) current election practices.
On October 23rd residents from surroundings villages arrived at 6AM in P— Village, in Kyainnseikyi Towship, Karen State. There, participants, who were predominately Karen but also included some Mon and Loa-Shan community members, held large red banners bearing anti election slogans while a protest organizer spoke and lead them in anti-election chants. The protest, conducted in a guerilla style which community members arriving quickly and dispersed before any reprisal action was taken, was conducted within two miles of an SPDC Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) base. The nearly 600 participants all came from areas banned from participating in the November 7th election by a directive from the Burmese State Election Commission in September, citing section 8 (f) of the Union Election Laws, that supposed security risks were to great for the election to occur in that area.
The protest was conducted as a result of this ban, and residents’ resulting concerns that the communities had no fair or genuine opportunity for representation in the upcoming election. According to the protest organizer, the location was chosen because of the presence of the near-by battalion; the open protest was meant to send a message to the local battalion and to Napiydaw. Yet despite the brazenness of the 5 hour rally, the near-by battalion has not yet taken any retributive measures or reacted in any way.
A Karen youth, from Kyainnseikyi Township, who wished to remain anonymous as he helped organize the protest, described the rally:
The slogans that protesters chanted over and over again when they were marching were for people to pull down the dictatorship system, to set up tripartite dialog, and to become a real democratic country. Most of the protesters also chanted this “We want NO 2010 Election”. At this protest [we] cared whether it was secure or safe to protest in advance.
One participant, Saw Ah Wong, described how he was motivated to attend the protest because of anger over the Union Solidarity and Development Party’s (USDP) active voter manipulation through the collection of advanced votes and the USDP’s use of names of citizens working abroad from government family lists being automatically cast in favor of the USDP.
For me… I come to protest because I am not allowed to vote in this Junta-led election. I cannot say whether my vote will be the vote for the Junta-backed political party or if I am not allowed to vote for anyone. But I feel like this – as the candidate who is presenting for his ethnic or his people is not allowed to contest for the vote, his ethnicity is like an ethnicity unrecognized by the country’s government. I am not satisfied with that. Also, we know that since the end of December [2009] and beginning of October [2010], the Township Peaceful and Development Council headmen, the civilian militia, and other authorities in Karen villages and Mon villages near Kyainnseikyi Town, have organized villagers to vote in advance. Even though Kyainnseikyi is a town, in reality it a rural town [implying that it is not watched for election abuses]. But the residents in the town have to give a check for the USDP candidate without their desire. And most of regions have become the places where the USDP forces villagers to vote for it…. Here, we want to let everyone know instead of letting no one know. This is only able to be revealed by protesting it, and people learning about it and also the world.
Two days later on October 25th two more protests occurred, in M— village, Kyainnseikyi Township, and in eastern Ye Township, Mon State. Both protests occurred in a similar fashion, with nearby communities turning out early in the morning and dispersing before noon. The protests in M—village drew almost 500 participants and the rally in eastern Ye Township drew over 600 participants from 28 surrounding villages. The rally in eastern Ye township, which was also conducted close to a Burmese army LIB, No. 591, has previously been documented experiencing frequent election related abuses[1]. Like the October 23rd protest, witnesses have reported USDP efforts to collect advanced votes, and violations of election law by the pro-government party such as casting absentee votes automatically in their favor, are major points of anger for protest participants.
Another significant cause in all three election protest was the perceived absence of vocal anti-election sentiment, according to several organizers. These communities, despite often times sever security restrictions by local SPDC battalions, are aware of the evolution of the current political situation. As noted by the Karen Human Rights Group’s (KHRG) 2008 report Village Agency, this is opposed to the confused perception that only urban centers, like Rangoon, are sites for political action or resistance. Being aware of the political climate at the local level, these protest indicate recognition by villagers, that other communities are also actively tuned into the current political situation, also despite SPDC efforts to restrict dissenting information, and could be inspired to voice their political discontent. By staging protests in close relation to local battalions, these communities have shown that the target of protests is still the regime, and by so visibly conducting a demonstration, is most likely to draw attention from Naypidaw, and international observers.
Witnesses have indicated that in all three cases protests went off smoothly with out security disruptions or a crackdown by local battalions. According to one participant from eastern Ye Township, where the protest was held close to a Burmese battalions, “Until now we have heard that no one [no protest participants] has been arrested by the Southeast commander-led battalion and regional authorities yet. But the persons who led the protest have to hide for their security.” The success of these protests has been attributed to the strong local connections and community amongst villages and an awareness of the security threat from possible outside sources and local battalions.
According to a local source from eastern Ye Township, who wished to remain anonymous, the protest was created as an opportunity to voice the communities opinions to other communities and to the regime, and demonstrate the communities commitment to rights they believe they should have:
This protest has started since this morning at 7 AM, and it is a guerilla protest …. to gather quickly and to separate quickly.. that is because of the security awareness. And the protest was over at 11 AM. The 2008 constitution was drawn only for one side – the SPDC’s side. Since then, we have been protesting. Not that we have just started to protest now though. We protest because we want to get rights: ethnic rights, and rights to self-expression. Why do we have to support this predictable the-Junta-is-going-to-win election since it does not grant all rights for everyone? We also want to let the Burmese people who are in other villages, other townships, and other states and divisions know that we are totally against this unfair Junta-led election. We also do not want to keep listening to the military regime – [we want to] stop doing what the Junta wants and stop shutting up our mouths to whether we can speak up [or not] – we want [for] all [of us] to come together and protest together. We all will face with any upcoming danger, and as we work together, we will face [the danger] together. And that is the reason why we protest.
The occurrence of protests of over 1700 villagers in rural eastern Burma is a strong indicator that despite pressure on local communities by the SPDC to support the pro-government parties, and active attempts to suppress dissent, communities retain a sense of political activism and agency that they choose to express in appropriate settings. In these cases, protest organizers have been able to asses the risks of conducting large scale protests within their communities, recognized which areas would be best able to attract attention for the protest, and as indicated by accounts above, used tactics that would best ensure the security of the participants. HURFOM hopes that these accounts will indicate that local communities in eastern Burma are actively aware of the political climate of the country, their region, and see themselves as potential agents in sharing knowledge and awareness within the community.
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/1700-villagers-join-anti-election-protests-in-karen-and-mon-state/
by peacerunning
PICS by Thwathiko
HURFOM, Mon State and Karen State: In a significant display of anti-election sentiment, three communities in Kyainnseikyi Township and Ye Township have held large anti-election rallies within two days of each other. According to participants, all three rallies were held because none of the communities had heard of any previous instances of open protests to raise awareness about ongoing election-related abuses villages in their area had experienced. Protesters hoped that, despite the risks, because of their actions other communities would more openly display their discontent with the State Peace and Development Council’s (SPDC’s) current election practices.
On October 23rd residents from surroundings villages arrived at 6AM in P— Village, in Kyainnseikyi Towship, Karen State. There, participants, who were predominately Karen but also included some Mon and Loa-Shan community members, held large red banners bearing anti election slogans while a protest organizer spoke and lead them in anti-election chants. The protest, conducted in a guerilla style which community members arriving quickly and dispersed before any reprisal action was taken, was conducted within two miles of an SPDC Light Infantry Battalion (LIB) base. The nearly 600 participants all came from areas banned from participating in the November 7th election by a directive from the Burmese State Election Commission in September, citing section 8 (f) of the Union Election Laws, that supposed security risks were to great for the election to occur in that area.
The protest was conducted as a result of this ban, and residents’ resulting concerns that the communities had no fair or genuine opportunity for representation in the upcoming election. According to the protest organizer, the location was chosen because of the presence of the near-by battalion; the open protest was meant to send a message to the local battalion and to Napiydaw. Yet despite the brazenness of the 5 hour rally, the near-by battalion has not yet taken any retributive measures or reacted in any way.
A Karen youth, from Kyainnseikyi Township, who wished to remain anonymous as he helped organize the protest, described the rally:
The slogans that protesters chanted over and over again when they were marching were for people to pull down the dictatorship system, to set up tripartite dialog, and to become a real democratic country. Most of the protesters also chanted this “We want NO 2010 Election”. At this protest [we] cared whether it was secure or safe to protest in advance.
One participant, Saw Ah Wong, described how he was motivated to attend the protest because of anger over the Union Solidarity and Development Party’s (USDP) active voter manipulation through the collection of advanced votes and the USDP’s use of names of citizens working abroad from government family lists being automatically cast in favor of the USDP.
For me… I come to protest because I am not allowed to vote in this Junta-led election. I cannot say whether my vote will be the vote for the Junta-backed political party or if I am not allowed to vote for anyone. But I feel like this – as the candidate who is presenting for his ethnic or his people is not allowed to contest for the vote, his ethnicity is like an ethnicity unrecognized by the country’s government. I am not satisfied with that. Also, we know that since the end of December [2009] and beginning of October [2010], the Township Peaceful and Development Council headmen, the civilian militia, and other authorities in Karen villages and Mon villages near Kyainnseikyi Town, have organized villagers to vote in advance. Even though Kyainnseikyi is a town, in reality it a rural town [implying that it is not watched for election abuses]. But the residents in the town have to give a check for the USDP candidate without their desire. And most of regions have become the places where the USDP forces villagers to vote for it…. Here, we want to let everyone know instead of letting no one know. This is only able to be revealed by protesting it, and people learning about it and also the world.
Two days later on October 25th two more protests occurred, in M— village, Kyainnseikyi Township, and in eastern Ye Township, Mon State. Both protests occurred in a similar fashion, with nearby communities turning out early in the morning and dispersing before noon. The protests in M—village drew almost 500 participants and the rally in eastern Ye Township drew over 600 participants from 28 surrounding villages. The rally in eastern Ye township, which was also conducted close to a Burmese army LIB, No. 591, has previously been documented experiencing frequent election related abuses[1]. Like the October 23rd protest, witnesses have reported USDP efforts to collect advanced votes, and violations of election law by the pro-government party such as casting absentee votes automatically in their favor, are major points of anger for protest participants.
Another significant cause in all three election protest was the perceived absence of vocal anti-election sentiment, according to several organizers. These communities, despite often times sever security restrictions by local SPDC battalions, are aware of the evolution of the current political situation. As noted by the Karen Human Rights Group’s (KHRG) 2008 report Village Agency, this is opposed to the confused perception that only urban centers, like Rangoon, are sites for political action or resistance. Being aware of the political climate at the local level, these protest indicate recognition by villagers, that other communities are also actively tuned into the current political situation, also despite SPDC efforts to restrict dissenting information, and could be inspired to voice their political discontent. By staging protests in close relation to local battalions, these communities have shown that the target of protests is still the regime, and by so visibly conducting a demonstration, is most likely to draw attention from Naypidaw, and international observers.
Witnesses have indicated that in all three cases protests went off smoothly with out security disruptions or a crackdown by local battalions. According to one participant from eastern Ye Township, where the protest was held close to a Burmese battalions, “Until now we have heard that no one [no protest participants] has been arrested by the Southeast commander-led battalion and regional authorities yet. But the persons who led the protest have to hide for their security.” The success of these protests has been attributed to the strong local connections and community amongst villages and an awareness of the security threat from possible outside sources and local battalions.
According to a local source from eastern Ye Township, who wished to remain anonymous, the protest was created as an opportunity to voice the communities opinions to other communities and to the regime, and demonstrate the communities commitment to rights they believe they should have:
This protest has started since this morning at 7 AM, and it is a guerilla protest …. to gather quickly and to separate quickly.. that is because of the security awareness. And the protest was over at 11 AM. The 2008 constitution was drawn only for one side – the SPDC’s side. Since then, we have been protesting. Not that we have just started to protest now though. We protest because we want to get rights: ethnic rights, and rights to self-expression. Why do we have to support this predictable the-Junta-is-going-to-win election since it does not grant all rights for everyone? We also want to let the Burmese people who are in other villages, other townships, and other states and divisions know that we are totally against this unfair Junta-led election. We also do not want to keep listening to the military regime – [we want to] stop doing what the Junta wants and stop shutting up our mouths to whether we can speak up [or not] – we want [for] all [of us] to come together and protest together. We all will face with any upcoming danger, and as we work together, we will face [the danger] together. And that is the reason why we protest.
The occurrence of protests of over 1700 villagers in rural eastern Burma is a strong indicator that despite pressure on local communities by the SPDC to support the pro-government parties, and active attempts to suppress dissent, communities retain a sense of political activism and agency that they choose to express in appropriate settings. In these cases, protest organizers have been able to asses the risks of conducting large scale protests within their communities, recognized which areas would be best able to attract attention for the protest, and as indicated by accounts above, used tactics that would best ensure the security of the participants. HURFOM hopes that these accounts will indicate that local communities in eastern Burma are actively aware of the political climate of the country, their region, and see themselves as potential agents in sharing knowledge and awareness within the community.
http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/1700-villagers-join-anti-election-protests-in-karen-and-mon-state/
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) warmly welcomes the legitimate leaders calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference”
01 November 2010
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) warmly welcomes the legitimate leaders’ Ka-Lay Decision on 24 October 2010 calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference”.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ pledge to keep on working with the right collective leadership to abolish dictatorship system, to restore democracy and human rights, and to take place national reconciliation in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly agrees with the legitimate leaders’ announcement saying that the results coming out from 2010 election which will be held in accord with 2008 constitution which legitimize military rule will not pave the way for the national reconciliation and restoring democracy and human rights in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ pledge to keep on working under the leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in order to take place genuine dialogue leading towards national reconciliation in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ declaration wishing to convene the “Second Pin-Lon Conference” in order to build the Genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will be neither separation nor one union, based on equality and democracy. We also support legitimate leaders’ desire to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” in the matter of urgency.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) calls for the international community to support legitimate leaders’ Ka-Lay Decision calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” for the sake of peace in Burma.
For more information please contact
Myo Thein [United Kingdom]
Phone: 00-44-78 7788 2386
U Khin Maung Win [United States]
Phone: 001-941-961-2622
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar [United States]
Phone: 001 509 586 8309
U Tint Swe Thiha [United States]
Phone: 001-509-582-3261, 001-509-591-8459
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) warmly welcomes the legitimate leaders’ Ka-Lay Decision on 24 October 2010 calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference”.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ pledge to keep on working with the right collective leadership to abolish dictatorship system, to restore democracy and human rights, and to take place national reconciliation in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly agrees with the legitimate leaders’ announcement saying that the results coming out from 2010 election which will be held in accord with 2008 constitution which legitimize military rule will not pave the way for the national reconciliation and restoring democracy and human rights in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ pledge to keep on working under the leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in order to take place genuine dialogue leading towards national reconciliation in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ declaration wishing to convene the “Second Pin-Lon Conference” in order to build the Genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will be neither separation nor one union, based on equality and democracy. We also support legitimate leaders’ desire to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” in the matter of urgency.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) calls for the international community to support legitimate leaders’ Ka-Lay Decision calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” for the sake of peace in Burma.
For more information please contact
Myo Thein [United Kingdom]
Phone: 00-44-78 7788 2386
U Khin Maung Win [United States]
Phone: 001-941-961-2622
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar [United States]
Phone: 001 509 586 8309
U Tint Swe Thiha [United States]
Phone: 001-509-582-3261, 001-509-591-8459
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) warmly welcomes the legitimate leaders' decision calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” (01 Nov 2
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) warmly welcomes the legitimate leaders’ Ka-Lay Decision on 24 October 2010 calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference”.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ pledge to keep on working with the right collective leadership to abolish dictatorship system, to restore democracy and human rights, and to take place national reconciliation in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly agrees with the legitimate leaders’ announcement saying that the results coming out from 2010 election which will be held in accord with 2008 constitution which legitimize military rule will not pave the way for the national reconciliation and restoring democracy and human rights in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ pledge to keep on working under the leadership of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in order to take place genuine dialogue leading towards national reconciliation in Burma.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) wholeheartedly supports legitimate leaders’ declaration wishing to convene the “Second Pin-Lon Conference” in order to build the Genuine Federal Union of Burma, which will be neither separation nor one union, based on equality and democracy. We also support legitimate leaders’ desire to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” in the matter of urgency.
Burma Democratic Concern (BDC) calls for the international community to support legitimate leaders’ Ka-Lay Decision calling for to convene “Second Pin-Lon Conference” for the sake of peace and prosperity in Burma.
For more information please contact
Myo Thein [United Kingdom]
Phone: 00-44-78 7788 2386
U Khin Maung Win [United States]
Phone: 001-941-961-2622
Daw Khin Aye Aye Mar [United States]
Phone: 001 509 586 8309
U Tint Swe Thiha [United States]
Phone: 001-509-582-3261, 001-509-591-8459
Source: http://www.bdcburma.org/StudentDetails.asp?Id=100
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
