Thursday, September 28, 2017

Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing: What’s the Difference? 28 september 2017 thurs.

International Permanent People’s Tribunal Rules Rohingya Crisis as ‘Genocide’

The eyes of the world are on Myanmar’s shocking brutalisation and slaughter of a Muslim minority. Alister McKeith reports from Kuala Lumpur.
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal has ruled the current Rohingya crisis as unequivocally genocide, denouncing the United Nation’s use of the term ethnic cleansing as a “euphemism” with “no basis in international law.”
After a week-long hearing at the University of Malaya, Judge Daniel Feierstein stated that the Myanmar Government was guilty of “war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”.
War crimes listed included arbitrary arrest and torture; enforced disappearances; rape; killing; confiscation of property; and internal displacement.
Shop-Sparkke-Change-the-Date-740-x-200
The Tribunal also affirmed that the election of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy had only brought about an “acceleration” of human rights abuses, and in an attempt to turn Myanmar into a “supreme Buddhist entity”.
Throughout the week, expert witnesses and victims of human rights abuses testified to the Peoples’ Tribunal, which began a grass-roots initiative in 1979 to denounce crimes of Latin American dictators.
The Tribunal heard that ongoing human rights abuses have been committed not only against the Rohingya, but also other ethnic and religious minorities, including the Kachin and other Muslim groups.
Testimonies included harrowing eyewitness accounts of mass rape of Rohingya women and the systemic slaughter of Rohingya men and boys. This included the massacre at Tula Toli, a Rohingyan village near the border of Myanmar and Bangladesh.
Myanamar has been directly accused of genocide against the Rohingya population within its borders. Pictured is a visiting delegation To Rakhine from the European Commission, in 2013. Rakhine says ECHO DG (IMAGE: Christophe Reltien, EU/ECHO, Rakhine State, Flickr)
Myanamar has been directly accused of genocide against the Rohingya population within its borders. Pictured is a visiting delegation To Rakhine from the European Commission, in 2013. Rakhine says ECHO DG
(IMAGE: Christophe Reltien, EU/ECHO, Rakhine State, Flickr)
Razia Sultana, a Rohingyan lawyer based in Chittagong, showed video interviews conducted with women from Tula Toli. In one, a Rohingyan woman tearfully described the massacre, explaining that the villagers were told by authorities not to leave Tula Toli and that they would be safe.
Instead, she describes how the Myanmar Army descended by helicopter and surrounded the village.
They then proceeded to systematically rape the women, killing and burning women, children and men.
“Nothing was left of the women… mutilated bodies were chopped up and set on fire… oh, there was a massacre in Tula Toli,” the woman exclaims.
Tactics such as the promise of safety were also used by Hutu militia in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in order to herd Tutsi people into kill zones such as churches. In fact, parallels between the Rwandan genocide and the current crisis were noted during the Tribunal.
Founder and chairmen of Genocide Watch, Dr Gregory Stanton, explained a 10-stage process of genocide, which includes classification such as the use of ID cards, dehumanisation, preparation and planning, and persecution.
This process, he said, amounted to genocide, which under the Genocide Convention is defined as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
Evidence of intent included a 1988 policy of the Myanmar Government to deny Rohingya citizenship, and that “any property must be confiscated and redistributed amongst the Buddhist population”.
Deceased war criminal, Slobodan Milosevic.
Deceased war criminal, Slobodan Milosevic.
Dr Stanton explained that the term ethnic cleansing was actually coined by former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, who faced charges of war crimes in 1999.
Unlike the Genocide Convention, there are no international legal instruments that address ethnic cleansing; as such, use of the term in the international sphere was said to be redundant.
The Tribunal sessions were heavily guarded by Malaysian police, most notably due to the presence of outspoken Burmese activist Dr Maung Zarni.
Dr Zarni’s great-Uncle was a collegiate of Aung San Suu Kyi’s father; he is related to many Burmese currently in positions of power.
Yet due to his outspoken opposition to the regime, he has been labelled a traitor and an enemy of the state.
Dr Zarni reported receiving death threats leading up to the proceedings. However, in his testimony he stated: “I am not the enemy of the state; the state is the enemy of the people.”
The Tribunal concurred, describing how since the military coup in 1962, the government had been “at war with 40 per cent of its population”.
In line with the prosecution process, the Myanmar Government had been invited to make a defence; however, it declined.
Instead, a video of Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent speech was played to the court.
In her speech, Aung San Suu Kyi stated that “we need to find out why this exodus [of Rohingya people]is happening”.
Had the Myanmar Government attended the proceedings, perhaps they would not be asking such an obvious question.
While the judgement passed down from the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal is not binding, it is the only official international entity currently defining the current crisis for what it is: genocide.
In his closing statements, the chair of the Malaysian Organizing Committee, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, repeated that oft-cited phrase “never again”.
Yet without immediate intervention and sanctions from influential nations such as Australia – who’s Defence Force has been training with the Myanmar Army – genocide will continue to occur, yet again.

Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing: What’s the Difference?

  • The crime of genocide is codified and defined in international law in the 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
  • Genocide refers to the intent to destroy in whole or in part, members of a particular group, and is considered a process, not a result.
  • Genocide can occur in a number of ways, including killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
  • Ethnic cleansing was a term first used in the 1990’s in reference to Slobodan Milosevic’s policy to forcibly remove Bosnian Muslims from ‘greater Serbia’ during the breakup of former Yugoslavia.
  • Ethnic cleansing is now generally used to describe the forced displacement of peoples of a particular group.
  • Ethnic cleansing is not a crime under international law, although a 2005 UN World Summit included ethnic cleansing as a responsibility states have a duty to protect their populations from.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Fakland war Wai Hmuu Thwin ထံမွကးူယူပါသည္​ 28 sep.2017.

Wai Hmuu Thwin ထံမွကးူယူပါသည္​

တပ္မေတာ္နဲ႕ အတူတူ လက္တြဲျပီး ရိုေတြကို တိုက္မယ္ ဆိုတဲ႔ ငေပါေဒ အာဂ်င္တီးနား ဂ်င္းအေၾကာင္​း ဖတ္ၾကည့္ၾကဖို႔ပါ။ :)

ဒီေန႔ေတာ့ အာဂ်င္တီးနား ဂ်င္းေလးအေၾကာင္းနည္း
နည္းမွ်ေ၀ပါရေစဦး။
=======================
ဒီေန႔တစ္ေန႔လံုး အာဂ်င္တီးနားႏိူင္ငံေရးအသြင္ကူး
ေျပာင္းမႈကာလက အာဂ်င္တီးနားကာကြယ္ေရး၀န္
ႀကီးဌာနမွာ  တာ၀န္ထမ္းေဆာင္ခဲ့ၿပီး   အသြင္ကူး
ေျပာင္းမႈမွာ ထဲထဲ၀င္၀င္ပါ၀င္ေဆာင္ရြက္ခဲ့တဲ့ဘြား
ေတာ္ႀကီးနဲ႔ထုိင္ၿပီး စကားေျပာျဖစ္တယ္။ မနက္က
ေနညေနအထိပဲ။

ထုိင္ေျပာၾကရင္း ေဖာက္ကလန္စစ္ပြဲအေၾကာင္းကို
ေျပာျဖစ္ၾကပါေလေရာ။ ေဖာက္ကလန္စစ္ပြဲဆုိတာ
သိတယ္မဟုတ္လား။ ေဖာက္ကလန္ကၽြန္းမွာ နယ္
ေျမပိုင္ဆုိင္မႈ ျပသနာနဲ႔ပတ္သက္ၿပီး အာဂ်င္တီးနား
နဲ႔ ၿဗိတိန္တို႔တုိက္တဲ့စစ္ပြဲ။ ဒီစစ္ပြဲမွာ အာဂ်င္တီးနား
တုိ႔ ႐ံႈးတယ္။ သာမန္႐ံႈးရင္  တင္မကဘူး။ အေတာ္
ေလးအထိနာခဲ့တယ္။

ဘယ္ေလာက္ေတာင္အထိနာလဲဆုိရင္ ၁၉၇၆ ကစ
တင္ခဲ့တဲ့ အာဂ်င္တီးနား စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ဟာ ဒီ
စစ္ပြဲအ႐ံႈးေၾကာင့္  ၿပိဳလဲသြားခဲ့ရတဲ့ အထိပဲ။ အာဂ်င္
တီးနားေတြဆုိ စိတ္နာလြန္းလို႔ - ေဖာက္ကလန္ဆုိ
တဲ့နာမည္ကို ၾကားေတာင္မၾကားခ်င္ၾကဘူး။ ဒီကၽြန္း
ကိုလဲ ခုထိ ေဖာက္ကလန္လို႔ေခၚရင္မႀကိဳက္ၾကဘူး။
Malvinasလို႔ပဲ စပိန္နာမည္ေခၚၾကတယ္။

ေျပာခ်င္တာက ၁၉၇၆ ခုႏွစ္က စတင္အာဏာသိမ္း
ခဲ့ၿပီး ျပည္သူေတြကုိ ရက္ရက္စက္စက္ဖိႏွိပ္ခဲ့တဲ့ အာ
ဂ်င္တီးနားစစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြဟာ သူတုိ႔ဂုဏ္သိကၡာ၊
ႀကီးျမတ္မႈနဲ႔ပါ၀ါကို ျပသႏိူင္ဖုိ႔အတြက္ ဒီစစ္ပြဲကိုတိုက္
ဖုိ႔ ဆံုးျဖတ္ခဲ့ၾကပါတယ္။ ဒီစစ္ပြဲတုိက္ဖုိ႔ဆံုးျဖတ္ခဲ့ေပ
မယ့္ အာဂ်င္တီးနားစစ္တပ္ဟာ စစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြ
ရဲ႕ စီမံခန္႔ခြဲမႈအမွားေတြ၊ ဆုိးရြားလွတဲ့အက်င့္ပ်က္ျခ
စားမႈေတြေၾကာင့္ လက္နက္အင္အား၊ လူအင္အား၊
စိတ္ဓါတ္ခြန္အား အစစအရာရာမွာ အေျခအေနအ
ေတာ္ေလးဆုိးေနပါတယ္။

ဒါေပမဲ့ အရွိတရားကို မ်က္ေမွာက္မျပဳႏိူင္တဲ့ စစ္အာ
ဏာရွင္ႀကီးေတြဟာ သူတုိ႔ရဲ႕တန္ခိုးထြားမႈကို ကမာၻ
သိျပသႏိူင္ဖို႔ ဒီစစ္ပြဲကိုတုိက္တာေပါ့။ ဒီစစ္ပြဲကိုတုိက္
ခဲ့အခါမွာထူးျခားတာတစ္ခုက"အာဂ်င္တီးနားျပည္သူ
ေတြဟာ သူတို႔ေတြအေပၚမွာရက္ရက္စက္စက္ဖိႏွိပ္
မႈေတြျပဳလုပ္ေနတဲ့ အာဏာရွင္စစ္တပ္ရဲ႕ ဆိုးကြက္
ေတြကိုေမ့ၿပီး အူလႈိက္သည္းလိႈက္ေထာက္ခံၾကေတာ့
တာပါပဲ"။

ဘြားေတာ္ရဲ႕အဆုိအရ "စစ္သည္ေတြ စစ္တုိက္ထြက္
ၿပီဆုိတာနဲ႔ ျပည္သူေတြဟာ လမ္းေပၚမွာအျပည့္ထြက္
ၿပီး အားေပးၾက၊ ခ်ီးေျမွာက္ဂုဏ္ျပဳၾကတာပဲ။ စစ္ဗိုလ္
ခ်ဳပ္ႀကီးေတြကလည္း အႀကိဳက္ေပါ့။ သူတုိ႔ဘယ္လိုပဲ
ဖိႏွိပ္၊ ႏွိပ္စက္၊ အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ ခုလို စစ္ပြဲတုိက္မယ္
ဆိုေတာ့ ျပည္သူေတြက သူတုိ႔ကို အျပည့္အ၀ေထာက္
ခံၾကတာကိုး။ တကယ္လုိ႔ ဒီစစ္ပြဲသာႏူိင္ရင္ေတာ့ သူ
တုိ႔ရဲ႕ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ကို ထာ၀ရတည္ၿမဲေအာင္
ႀကိဳးစားႏူိင္ေတာ့မယ္ေလ"။

ဒီမွာ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ေရးခ်င္တာေလးစပါၿပီ။ အဲ့ဒီေတာ့ဘာ
လုပ္သလဲဆုိေတာ့ စစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြဟာ စစ္ပြဲနဲ႔ပတ္
သက္ၿပီး အာဂ်င္တီးနားျပည္သူေတြၾကားထဲမွာ အႀကီး
အက်ယ္ကို ၀ါဒျဖန္႔ပါေတာ့တယ္။ ဒီစစ္ပြဲဟာ အာဂ်င္တီး
နားႏူိင္ငံရဲ႕အမ်ိဳးသားအက်ိဳးစီးပြားအတြက္ဘယ္ေလာက္
အေရးႀကီးၿပီး စစ္တပ္က ဒါကို ကာကြယ္ေပးမယ္ဘာညာ
ဆုိတာမ်ိဳးေတြေပါ့။ အမ်ိဳးသားလံုၿခံဳေရးတုိ႔၊ အမ်ိဳးသားအ
က်ိဳးစီးပြားတုိ႔ဆုိတာကလည္း လူေတြသည္းေျခႀကိဳက္ႏွ
လံုးခုိက္တဲ့အစာေတြမဟုတ္ေလလား။ ဒီေတာ့ စြတ္စပ္
ကို ၀ါဒေတြျဖန္႔တာပဲ။

အဲ့ဒီအခါ သတင္းစာေတြကလည္း(အဲ့ဒီအခ်ိန္တုန္းက
သတင္းစာေတြကလည္း အစိုးရနဲ႔နီးစပ္တဲ့သတင္းစာနဲ႔
အစိုးရသတင္းစာေတြေပါ့) "ငါတုိ႔ႏိူင္ေတာ့မည္/စပိန္လုိ
ဆိုရင္ Eastamos Ganando"ဆိုတာမ်ိဳးေတြ၊ "အဂၤလိပ္
ေတြေတာ့ လက္နက္ခ်ကုန္ႀကီၿပီ/Vimos Rendirse A 
Los Ingleses"ဆုိတာေတြကို ပံုေတြနဲ႔ ေ၀ေ၀ဆာဆာ
ေဖာ္ျပၾကတာေပါ့။(ေအာက္က ပံုႏွစ္ပံုမွာၾကည့္ပါ။) မ
နက္ဖန္၊ သန္ဘက္ခါပဲ စစ္ႏူိင္ေတာ့မလုိ။ အဂၤလိပ္ေတြ
ပဲလက္နက္ခ်ကုန္သလိုလုိနဲ႔ သတင္းေတြ၊ ဓါတ္ပံုေတြ
ေ၀ေ၀ဆာဆာနဲ႔ ၀ွဲခ်ီးကိုေဖာ္ျပၾကတာ။ လူေတြကလည္း
ေပ်ာ္ၾကေမာ္ၾကေပါ့။ 

ဓါတ္ပံုအတုေတြေတာင္သံုးလုိက္ၾကေသး။ အာဂ်င္တီး
နားသတင္းစာေတြထဲမွာ အဂၤလိပ္သေဘၤာေတြနစ္ၾက
တာဆုိတာကလည္း ျမင္လုိ႔ေတာင္မေကာင္းဘူး။ HMS
Invincible ဆုိလည္း အာဂ်င္တီးနားသတင္းစာေတြက
ခနခနကို ျမွဳပ္ပစ္ေနတာပဲ။ အဲ့လိုသတင္းေတြနဲ႔လူေတြ
ကလည္း အႀကီးအက်ယ္ကိုေထာက္ခံေနၾကတာ။ သာ
မန္လူေတြတင္မကဘူး။ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ကို ဆန္႔
က်င္ၾကတဲ့သူေတြပါ တခဲနက္ကိုေထာက္ခံၾကတာပဲ။

နာမည္ႀကီး စာေရးဆရာ၊ ပန္းခ်ီဆရားအားနက္စတုိ
ဆာဘာတိုေျပာတာေလးကိုပဲၾကည့္ၾကည့္။ "ဥေရာပ
ေရ။ အျမင္မမွားနဲ႔ေရာ့။ Malvinas ေဖာက္ကလန္ကၽြန္း
အတြက္ တုိက္ေနတာ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္မဟုတ္ဘူး။
တစ္ႏူိင္ငံလံုးကတုိက္ေနတာ။ ငါ့လုိ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္
ကိုဆန္႔က်င္တဲ့သူေတြေတာင္ ညီညြတ္ၾကလို႔ ကိုလုိနီစ
နစ္ရဲ႕ေနာက္ဆံုးအစအနေတြကိုေဖာက္ဖ်က္ပစ္ၾကေတာ့
မယ္ကြ"ဆုိၿပီး ထေၾကြးေၾကာ္တာ။ ညီညြတ္ၾကေလာ့တုိ႔
ဘာတုိ႔ဆုိတာလည္း အဲ့ဒီတုန္းက မျမင္ခ်င္မၾကားခ်င္မွ
အဆံုး။

စစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြအတြက္ မဟန္ဘူးလား။ ဘယ္
ေလာက္အထိ ဟန္က်လဲဆိုေတာ့ မေန႔က ေမာင္ရဲေရး
ခဲ့တဲ့ လူ႔အခြင့္အေရးအတြက္ စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ကိုဆန္႔
က်င္ေနတဲ့ မိခင္မ်ားအဖြဲ႔လိုအဖြဲ႔ေတြေတာင္ ျပည္သူေတြ
က တကယ့္ႏူိင္ငံကယ္တင္ရွင္စစ္သားႀကီးေတြကို ဆန္႔
က်င္ရပါ့မလားဆုိၿပီး အသက္အႏၱရာယ္ၿခိမ္းေျခာက္တာ
ေတြဘာေတြလုပ္လာတဲ့အထိကိုျဖစ္ကုန္တာ။ ကၽြန္ေတာ္
နဲ႔ ကၽြန္ေတာ့္မိတ္ေဆြဘြားေတာ္ႀကီးကေတာ့ ျပည္သူေတြ
ဟာ သူတုိ႔ကို မတရားဖိႏွိပ္ေနတဲ့ စစ္အာဏာရွင္ေတြကို
ေတာင္ ခုလို စစ္ပြဲမ်ိဳးမွာ တခဲနက္ေထာက္ခံၾကတဲ့ အ
ေၾကာင္းရင္းကုိ ေဆြးေႏြးျဖစ္ေသးတယ္။ စိတ္၀င္စားဖို႔
ေကာင္းတယ္မထင္ဘူးလား။ ထားပါေလ။ ဇာတ္လမ္း
ေလးဆက္တာေပါ့။

အႀကီးအက်ယ္၀ါဒေတြျဖန္႔၊ လူထုက တိမ္းမူးေနၾကခ်ိန္
မွာ ေသာက္က်ိဳးကနည္းခ်င္ေတာ့ စစ္ပဲြမွာ အာဂ်င္တီးနား
တုိ႔႐ံႈးပါေလေရာ။ ရံႈးတာမွ မ႐ႈမလွကို႐ံႈးတာ။ လက္နက္
ခ်ရတာ။ ဒီေတာ့အာဂ်င္တီးနားတစ္ႏူိင္ငံလံုးေၾကကြဲၾကရ
တာေပါ့။ ဒီေန႔ႏူိင္ေတာ့မလုိ၊ မနက္ဖန္ႏူိင္ေတာ့မလုိေမွ်ာ္
လင့္ခ်က္ေတြနဲ႔ ေပ်ာ္ေနခ်ိန္မွာ ခုလို မ႐ႈမလွ႐ံႈးသြားေတာ့
မေၾကကြဲဘဲရွိပါ့မလား။ ပိုဆုိးတာက တခ်ိန္လံုး အႀကီးအ
က်ယ္ဂ်င္းထည့္ခံေနရတာကို စစ္ပြဲ႐ံႈးေတာ့မွပဲသိလုိက္ရ
တာပဲ။ 

ေနာက္ဆံုးေတာ့ အဲ့ဒီေဖာက္ကလန္စစ္ပြဲအ႐ံႈးေၾကာင့္ပဲ
အာဂ်င္တီးနား စစ္အာဏာရွင္စနစ္လည္း နိဂံုးကမၸတ္အ ဆံုးသတ္သြားပါရေလေရာ....

ကိုရဲ

tin win akbar translation Homo sapiens vs others..

tin win akbar translation
Homo sapiens vs others.

ပါေမာကၡ Yuval Noah Harari ရဲ႕ Banana in the heaven TED / talk ႏွင္႔ အျခား လက္ခ်ာ တခုကို ပူးေပါင္းၿပီး ဆီေလွ်ာ္ေအာင္ ျမန္မာမႈ ျပဳသည္။
လြန္ခဲ႔တဲ႔ ႏွစ္ေပါင္း (၇၀, ၀၀၀) အရင္က အာဖရိကတိုက္ ကေနထြက္ခြါလာခဲ႔တဲ႔ Homo Sapiens(လူျဖစ္ လာတဲ႔ ေမ်ာက္မ်ဳိးႏြယ္၊ တနည္း လူသားမ်ဳိးႏြယ္) ေတြဟာ တျခား သက္ရွိ သတၱဝါေတြႏွင္႔ ဘာမွ မျခား တဲ႔ သတၱဝါ တမ်ဳိးသာ ျဖစ္ခဲ႔ရာက ကမာၻတခုလုံးကို လႊမ္းမိုးခ်ဳပ္ကိုင္ထားရုံသာမက၊ ေန စႀကၤာဝဠာရဲ႕ အျပင္ကိုေတာင္ လႊမ္းမိုးဖို႔ အားယူေနတဲ႔ သတၱဝါ အျဖစ္ကို ေရာက္ရွိလာေအာင္ တြန္းပို႔ေပးတဲ႔ လွ်ိ႕ဝ်က္ ခ်က္က သူတို႔ဟာ ဘယ္႔ေလာက္ ခက္ခဲ၊ ရႈပ္ေထြးတဲ႔ အေျခအေနမ်ဳိးမွာမဆို၊ ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲ ႏိုင္စြမ္း ရွိရွိႏွင္႔ အေရအတြက္ အမ်ားအျပားပါဝင္တဲ႔ အစုအဖဲြ႔ အျဖစ္၊ ပီပီျပင္ျပင္ ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ ပူးေပါင္း လုပ္ကိုင္ ႏုိင္တဲ႔အရည္ အေသြးကို ပိုင္ဆိုင္ထားလို႔ပဲ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။
ဒီအရည္အေသြးမ်ဳိးဟာ တျခား ဘယ္သတၱဝါမွာမွ မရွိပါဘူး။ 
လူသူ လုံးဝ မရွိတဲ႔ ကၽြန္းႀကီး တခုမွာ Homo Sapiens တေယာက္ႏွင္႔ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီ တေကာင္ကို ေနခိုင္းရင္၊ ရွင္က်န္ႏိုင္မွာက ခ်င္ပန္ဇီပါ၊ Homo Sapiens မဟုတ္ပါဘူး။ Homo Sapiens ဟာ တေယာက္တည္းဆို ရင္၊ တိရိစာၦန္ တေကာင္ေလာက္ေတာင္ အစြမ္းအစ မရွိပါဘူး။ အဲဒါေပမယ္႔ အစုအဖဲြ႔ႏွင္႔ ျဖစ္လာရင္ေတာ႔ ဘယ္သူမွ လိုက္လို႔ မမီေတာ႔ပါဘူး။
အခုနက လူသူ လုံးဝ မရွိတဲ႔ ကၽြန္းႀကီး တခုမွာ Homo Sapiens တေထာင္ႏွင္႔ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီ တေထာင္င္ကို ေနခိုင္းရင္၊ ဘယ္သူေတြ ရွင္က်န္မွာလဲ ဆိုတာ ေမးစရာေတာင္ မလိုေတာ႔ပါဘူး။
ေဘာ႔လုံးကြင္းႀကီးထဲ Homo Sapiens တေသာင္းေလာက္ ဘာမွ ျပသာနာ မရွိပဲ ေနႏုိင္ေပမယ္႔၊ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီ တေသာင္းကို ထည္႔ထားလိုက္လို႔ကေတာ႔ ထိမ္းမႏိုင္၊ သိမ္းမရ ျဖစ္ကုန္မွာပါ။
Social insect (အစုအဖဲြ႔အျဖစ္ အတူတကြ ပူးေပါင္းေနထိုင္တတ္တဲ႔)ေတြျဖစ္တဲ႔ ပ်ားေတြ၊ ပုေရာ ဆိတ္ ေတြက အေရအတြက္ အေတာ္မ်ားမ်ားႏွင္႔ ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ ပူးေပါင္းလုပ္ကိုင္ ႏုိင္ေပမယ္႔၊ စိမ္ေေခၚမႈ အသစ္၊ အေျခအေန အသစ္၊ အႏ ၱရာယ္ အသစ္၊ အခြင္႔အလမ္းအသစ္ တစုံတခုႏွင္႔ ႀကဳံေတြ႔လာရင္၊ သူတို႔က သူတို႔ရဲ႕ စုဖဲြ႔ေနထုိင္မႈ စနစ္ကို ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲၿပီး၊ အေနအထားသစ္ႏွင္႔ ကိုက္ညီတဲ႔ စုဖဲြ႔ေနထိုင္မႈ ပုံစံသစ္ကို ဖန္တီး၊ တီထြင္ ႏုိင္ စြမ္း မရွိၾကပါဘူး။
ေမ်ာက္၊ လင္းပိုင္ေတြႏွင္႔ ဆင္ေတြက အေျခအေနသစ္ တရပ္မွာ ျပဳျပင္ေျပာင္းလဲၿပီး၊ အေနအထား သစ္ႏွင္႔ ကိုက္ညီတဲ႔ စုဖဲြ႔ေနထိုင္မႈ ပုံစံသစ္ကို ဖန္တီး၊ တီထြင္ ႏုိင္စြမ္းရွိၾကေပမယ္႔ မ်ားျပားတဲ႔ အေရအတြက္ ရွိတဲ႔ အစုအဖဲြ႔ အျဖစ္ ဖန္တီးေနထိုင္ ႏုိင္စြမ္း မရွိၾကပါဘူး။ သူတို႔က တစိမ္းတရံ မဟုတ္တဲ႔၊ တေကာင္ကို တေကာင္ ေကာင္းေကာင္း ေသေသခ်ာခ်ာ သိရွိ၊ ရင္းႏွီးတဲ႔၊ အေရအတြက္ အကန္႔အသတ္ႏွင္႔သာရွိတဲ႔ အစုအဖဲြ႔ အေသးေလးေတြ အျဖစ္သာ စုဖဲြ႔ႏိုင္ပါတယ္။
Homo Sapiens ေတြကသာ အသြင္ မတူတဲ႔၊ တႀကိမ္ တခါမွ ျမင္ေတြ႔ဖူးျခင္း မရွိတဲ႔၊ တစိမ္းတရံေတြႏွင္႔ ဘယ္လို ပတ္ဝန္းက်င္ အေျခအေနမ်ဳိးမွာ မဆို၊ ထိထိေရာက္ေရာက္ စုဖဲြ႔ၿပီး ပူးေပါင္း လုပ္ကိုင္ ႏုိင္စြမ္းရွိၾကတာပါ။
ဒါဆိုရင္၊ Homo Sapiens ေတြက တခါဘူးမွ ျမင္ေတြ႔ဘူးျခင္း မရွိတဲ႔၊ တစိမ္းတရံမ်ားႏွင္႔၊ အေရအတြက္ အမ်ားအျပားပါဝင္ၿပီး၊ က်စ္လစ္ ခိုင္မာ သိပ္သည္းတဲ႔ အစုအဖဲြ႔ အျဖစ္၊ ဘာလို႔ ပူးေပါင္း လုပ္ေဆာင္ႏုိင္ရတာလဲ?
အတိုခ်ဳပ္ေျပာရရင္၊ လူေတြရဲ႕ တမူထူးျခားတဲ႔ စိတ္ကူး၊ စိတ္သန္းေၾကာင္႔ပါ။ လူသားေတြက ႀကီးမားတဲ႔ အစုအဖဲြ႔ႀကီး အျဖစ္၊ ပူးေပါင္းလုပ္ေဆာင္လာတဲ႔ အခါတိုင္းမွာ၊ ဒီလိုပူးေပါင္းလုပ္ေဆာင္ႏုိ္င္ေအာင္၊ ဆဲြေဆာင္ စည္းရုံးတဲ႔ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ ပုံျပင္ ဇတ္လမ္းေလးေတြ ရွိစၿမဲပါ။ ဒီ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ ဇတ္လမ္းကို လူေတြက ဖန္တီး၊ တီထြင္တာ ျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ဒီဖန္တီး တည္ထြင္မႈ အေပၚကို လူေတြက ယုံၾကည္ လက္ခံ ၾကတယ္။ ၿပီးေတာ႔ မိမိႏွင္႔ ေတြ႔ဆုံ သိကၽြမ္းလာသူေတြကို ထပ္ၿပီး လက္ဆင္႔ကမ္း ေျပာျပၿပီး၊ ယုံၾကည္သက္ဝင္ၿပီး ပူးေပါင္းပါဝင္လာေအာင္ ဆဲြေဆာင္ စည္းရုံးတယ္။
ပူးေပါင္း ပါဝင္လာၾကသူေတြက ဒီစိတ္ကူးယဥ္ ဇတ္လမ္းကို ယုံၾကည္ေနသမွ် ကာလပတ္လုံး၊ သူတို႔က သူတို႔အတြက္ သတ္မွတ္ေပးထားတဲ႔ တာဝန္၊ ဝတၱရား၊ စည္းမ်ဥ္း၊ စည္းကမ္းေတြကို အားလုံးက တန္းတူ တန္ဘုိးထားၿပီး၊ သတ္မွတ္ခ်က္ အတုိင္း တူညီစြာ ယုံၾကည္ လုိက္နာၾကတယ္။
လူတေယာက္က အျခား လူတစုကို “ေဟ႔လူေတြ၊ ခင္ဗ်ားတို႔ ကၽြန္ေတာ္ေျပာတဲ႔ အတုိင္း ျပဳမူေနထုိင္ ၾကပါ၊ အဲဒီလို ျပဳမူေနထုိင္ရင္၊ ခင္ဗ်ားတို႔ နိဗၺာန္ဘုံ ကိုပို႔ျခင္း ခံရမယ္၊ အဲဒီမွာ ခင္ဗ်ာတို႔ လိုခ်င္တာ အားလုံးရမယ္”။ “ေျပာတဲ႔ အတုိင္း မေနထုိင္သူေတြကေတာ႔ မီးေတာက္၊ မီးလွ်ံေတြႏွင္႔ အတိၿပီးတဲ႔ ငရဲဘုံကို ပို႔ျခင္းခံရလိမ္႔မယ္” ဆိုတဲ႔ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ ပုံျပင္ (Fictional Reality)ကို ေျပာျပလုိက္ၿပီး၊ ၾကားၾကားသမွ်ေသာ သူေတြက အဲဒီလူ ေျပာတဲ႔ အတုိင္း ယုံၾကည္ လက္ခံ လိုက္ၾကေရာ။
ဒါေပမယ္႔ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီေတြကို ခ်င္ပန္ဇီ တေကာင္ “ေဟ႔ မင္းတို႔ ငါေျပာသလို လုပ္ၾက၊ ငါေျပာသလို လုပ္ရင္ မင္းတို႔ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီ နိဗၺာန္ကို ေရာက္သြားၿပီး၊ မင္းတို႔ လုိခ်င္ သေလာက္ ငေပ်ာ္သီးေတြ စားရမယ္လို႔ ေျပာရင္၊ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီေတြက ယုံၾကမွာ မဟုတ္ဖူး။
ဘာျဖစ္လို႔လဲ ဆိုရင္ ခ်င္ပန္ဇီေတြက ထိေတြ႔၊ ကိုင္တြယ္၊ ခံစား ျမင္ေတြ႔လို႔ ရႏွိင္တဲ႔ (Factual Reality) ေတြကိုသာ သိရွိ ယုံၾကည္ၾကတာပါ။လူသားေတြလို စိတ္ကူး ျဖင္႔သာ သိရွိႏိုင္ၿပီး၊ ထိေတြ႔၊ ကိုင္တြယ္၊ ခံစား ျမင္ေတြ႔လို႔ မရႏွိင္တဲ႔ (Fictional Reality)ကို ယုံၾကည္ႏုိင္စြမ္း မရွိၾကဘူး။ 
အခု ကၽြန္ေတာ္ ခင္ဗ်ားတို႔ကို ဒီ စင္ျမင္႔ေပၚက စိတ္ကူး ျဖင္႔သာ သိရွိႏိုင္ၿပီး၊ ထိေတြ႔၊ ကိုင္တြယ္၊ ခံစား ျမင္ေတြ႔လို႔ မရႏွိင္တဲ႔ (Fictional Reality)ေတြကို ေျပာေနပါတယ္။ အားလုံးက စိတ္ဝင္တစား ၿငိမ္ၿငိမ္သက္သက္ အာရုံစိုက္ နားေထာင္ၾကပါတယ္။ 
ခ်င္ပန္ဇီေတြက အဲဒီလို နားေထာင္မွာ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ သူတုိ႔မွာလည္း ဘာသာစကားရွိပါတယ္၊ သူတို႔လည္း ဆက္သြယ္ ေျပာဆိုၾကပါတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ္႔ သူတို႔က ငေပ်ာ္သီးေတြ၊ ရန္သူျဖစ္တဲ႔ ျခေသၤ႔ေတြ၊ ျမစ္ေခ်ာင္း အင္းအုိင္ေတြ စတဲ႔ ထိေတြ႔၊ ကိုင္တြယ္၊ ခံစား ျမင္ေတြ႔လို႔ ရႏွိင္တဲ႔ (Factual Reality) ေတြရဲ႕ အေၾကာင္း ကို သာ ဆက္သြယ္ ေျပာဆိုၾကမွာပါ။
Homo Sapiens ေတြရဲ႕ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ ပုံျပင္ (Fictional Story)ေတြထဲမွာ ဘာသာေရး၊ စီးပြားေရး၊ ႏိုင္ငံေရးေတြ ပါပါတယ္။ ဒီထဲက အေျပာင္ေျမာက္ဆုံး ပုံျပင္က ေငြစကၠဴပဲဗ်။ စားလို႔လည္းမရ၊ နမ္းလို႔၊ ရႈလို႔လည္း အာဟာရ မေျမာက္တဲ႔ ဒီစကၠဴ ျပတ္ကေလးက အရာအလုံးနီးပါးႏွင္႔ လဲလွယ္လို႔ရၿပီး၊ Homo Sapiens ေတြက အလြန္ ယုံၾကည္၊ တန္ဘိုးထားၾကတာဗ်။ ဘယ္႔ေလာက္ေတာင္ တန္ဘိုးထား၊ ယုံၾကည္ သလဲ ဆိုရင္၊ အေမရိကန္ကို အေသမုန္း၊ အေမရိကန္ ယဥ္ေက်ုးမႈကို အေသမုန္း၊ အေမရိကန္ေတြကို ကိုးကြယ္တဲ႔ ဘာသာတရားကို အလြန္မုန္းတဲ႔ ဘင္လာဒင္ က အေမရိကန္ ေဒၚလာကိုေတာ႔ အေတာ္ခ်စ္ တယ္ ဆိုပဲဗ်။
ေတာေတြ၊ ေတာင္ေတြ၊ ျမစ္ေခ်ာင္း၊ အင္းအုိင္ေတြက ထိေတြ႔၊ ကိုင္တြယ္၊ ခံစား ျမင္ေတြ႔လို႔ ရႏွိင္တဲ႔ (Factual Reality) ေတြျဖစ္ေပမယ္႔၊ အေမရိကန္ ျပည္ေထာင္စု ဆိုတာကေတာ႔ စိတ္ကူး ျဖင္႔သာ သိရွိ ႏိုင္ၿပီး၊ ထိေတြ႔၊ ကိုင္တြယ္၊ ခံစား ျမင္ေတြ႔လို႔ မရႏွိင္တဲ႔ (Fictional Reality)ေတြပါ။ 
ဘုရား၊ ေငြ၊ ႏုိင္ငံ၊ လူ႔အခြင္႔အေရး စတာေတြက Homo Sapiens ေတြရဲ႕ စိတ္ကူးယဥ္ၿပီး၊ တီထြင္ ဖန္တီး ထားတဲ႔ ပုံျပင္ေတြ ျဖစ္ၾကၿပီး၊ ဒီ ပုံုျပင္ေတြက Homo Sapiens ေတြကို ဘာမဆို (ေကာင္းေကာင္း၊ ဆိုးဆိုး) လုပ္ဖို႔ တြန္းအားေပးႏိုင္စြမ္းရွိပါတယ္။ 
Homo Sapiens ေတြက (Factual Reality)ႏွင္႔ (Fictional Reality)ႏွင္႔ (Fictional Reality) ဆိုတဲ႔ ဘဝ ႏွစ္မ်ဳိးမွာေနေနၾကၿပီး၊ အျခား သတၱဝါေတြက (Factual Reality) ဆိုတဲ႔ ဘဝ တမ်ဳိးတည္းမွာသာ ေနထုိင္ၾကပါတယ္။

Monday, September 25, 2017

Bama History / Wai Yan Hpone & Ta Emi..25 sep. 2017.

I came across an article- I thought you might be intersted : By Wai Yan Hpone 12 February 2015 
I used to be proud of being a Bamar. In the early days of my life, I was overwhelmed with pride for our rich culture, civilization and centuries-long history. We Bamar are a people who founded three great empires and produced warrior kings who were feared by our neighbors. In the view of the average Bamar, we are superior to any ethnic group politically, economically or culturally, and other minority groups have always looked up to us with fear and envy.
But once I began to explore beyond my childhood knowledge, I had to unlearn much of it. At that point, the pride I had always taken in my Burman-ness began to disintegrate, replaced by guilt and shame. I feel guilty and ashamed of my race because of its centuries-long oppression of Myanmar’s myriad ethnic minorities. Even though I am not directly liable for the wrongdoings of my fellow Bamar past and present, I feel I have a share in that responsibility. And the thought that justice for those transgressions has not been brought to this day has made me particularly embarrassed.
Growing up in Yangon, I was shielded from the truth by the city’s relatively pluralist nature, my naivety aided by the selective history conveyed in school textbooks and state media. The facade of the “Golden Land” has always prevented an urbanite like myself from seeing ethnic minorities’ true lives.
What I Learned
We were taught that a country called Myanmar has existed since as early as the 11th century as a land in which all peoples had been living “fraternally, peacefully and harmoniously.” There were times when unity faltered and we fought each other, but our relationships were fundamentally unbroken because we were “brothers.” It was because of the colonialists that we lost not just our sovereignty, but also our harmony. The colonialists used a divide-and-rule strategy to plant distrust among us, and it was all because of the British that, 130 years after they deposed of Burma’s last monarch, the country finds itself trapped in one of the world’s longest-running civil wars.
According to this discourse, the Bamar and other ethnic groups are real “blood brothers” who are descendants of the same family. In diversity we can see commonalities and the Bamar, as the majority ethnic group, are at the center of that diversity. As the story goes, differences are only superficial and, in essence, we are one! The military, also known as the Tatmadaw, had needed to intervene in 1962 only to prevent the union from breaking up. At that time, unscrupulous elements were colluding to adopt a “federal system,” which could only lead to the disintegration of the country. This is the narrative our Bamar leaders have pushed for decades.
What I Relearned
Wai Yan Hpone is a freelance writer and translator living in Yangon.
The true history of this country is that there was never a unified nation-state before the British came. The map of Myanmar today is only a legacy of the British occupation, an arbitrary demarcation of territory with little relation to the people that live within its bounds. Many ethnic groups lived independently in their own territories and practiced different governance systems, from monarchies and fiefdoms to chieftainships. When the Bamar empire reached its peak, other ethnic peoples swore allegiance to the kingdom, but for the most part the various peoples of Myanmar coexisted with self-determination.
In the eye of non-Bamar ethnic peoples, post-independence Myanmar has never been a union but rather a unitary state. The principles of the historic Panglong Agreement have been ignored, and the Bamar are acting as if ethnic areas were their own.
Ever since independence, successive regimes have prioritized the Burmanization process. A value for ethnic diversity exists in name only, and minority identities are being subsumed by that of the Bamar. Though Myanmar is a multiethnic state, Bamar culture, the Burmese language and Buddhism represent it. Other ethnic groups, languages and religions have been systematically suppressed and assimilated into the dominant one.
When the Panglong Agreement was not realized, many of our ethnic minorities resorted to armed struggle against the Bamar-dominated central government. As the civil war escalated, the country became increasingly militarized, giving the Tatmadaw a reason to further tighten its grip on power. In the eyes of Tatmadaw elites, Myanmar’s rebel groups are enemies of the state, justifying ruthless counterinsurgency strategies against both militants and civilian populations.
For ethnic minorities, the Bamar are synonymous with the Burma Army, which has perpetrated numerous atrocities upon them—forced grabbing of their lands and resources, forced labor, forced relocation, murder, rape, torture, arbitrary taxation and summary execution, to name a few. Ethnic nationalists also fear their language and culture will become extinct because of bans on teaching ethnic languages at school. Many people in ethnic borderlands have never seen a Bamar like myself from Myanmar proper. The only Bamar they know is the army, an institution that has colonized their lands for decades, and has tried to cleanse their ancestral homelands of native peoples. They hate the Bamar because they hate the Burma Army.
Unlearned History
Those who go to government schools in Myanmar cannot see or hear the feelings of our ethnic brothers. We are taught that the Tatmadaw is the only patriotic professional army, a fighting force that has defended the country from both foreign and domestic “rebel” forces. Federalism means balkanization and it is the Tatmadaw’s time-honored mission to save the country whenever it is in crisis. The education system gave us no opportunity to explore beyond the textbooks, however, or to challenge the state’s ideologies and discourses.
With the passage of Union Day today, another government-imposed target date for the signing of a nationwide ceasefire agreement will have gone unmet. In my view, as long as the decision makers in the Myanmar government and Tatmadaw are not convinced that achieving peace rests upon respecting our ethnic brothers’ rights and finding justice for their deprivations, there will be no genuine peace. There is a historic phrase by Gen. Aung San: “If the Bamar get one kyat, the other ethnic groups must get one kyat respectively.” The utter failure to fulfill Aung San’s promise has led to a sarcastic joke among ethnic minorities: “After Aung San visited the seven states, the Bamar got seven kyats but other ethnic peoples got only one kyat each.”
I want the Bamar chauvinists in the Tatmadaw and the government to reflect upon their past ideologies and actions. I also want them to ask themselves whether they really want peace. We Bamar have broken promises since independence, and have consistently cheated and exploited our ethnic brothers. We are the majority—we have power and we enjoy privilege. That’s why we must show tolerance, respect and sympathy to our less dominant minority groups. Failing to do so is shameful.
Whenever I hear the grievances of my ethnic friends, I feel guilty and ashamed. As long as we cannot prove that the Bamar are a civilized, rights-respecting people, I will not be proud of myself as a Bamar.
Wai Yan Hpone is a freelance writer and translator living in Yangon. He has worked with several local media organizations and has so far published two translated books, as well as contributing to both local and international publications.yr

Sunday, September 24, 2017

The age of information overload Victoria Belmont finds out who is really in charge - our technology or us? By Alex Hudson BBC News .

The age of information overload

Victoria Belmont finds out who is really in charge - our technology or us?
By Alex Hudson
BBC News

From reading emails to managing status updates on mobile devices 24/7 with an all-you-can-eat data plan - we are consuming information like never before.
Forget about describing bytes as mega and giga, think exa and zetta because by 2016 there may be the data equivalent of every movie ever made hurtling across the internet every three minutes.
While that may seem like way too much for a person to watch, an academic study by the University of California, San Diego, suggests that current data levels are the equivalent of each US citizen consuming 12 hours of information - or media - each day.
An average US citizen on an average day, it says, consumes 100,500 words, whether that be email, messages on social networks, searching websites or anywhere else digitally.
In this photo illustration the Twitter website is displayed on a mobile phone at a NRL match
In some cases, talking about an event is more important than the experience
And as the university says we sleep for seven hours a day, in practice that means that three quarters of waking time is spent receiving information, the majority of which is electronic.
But the definition of "media consumption" is hazy and any difference between seeing something and actively reading it, is, in statistics, difficult to differentiate.
"If you are on the computer and the TV is on, Nielsen [a television measurement firm] still call it watching TV," says co-author of the report Professor Roger Bohn, of UC San Diego.
"In principle, you can have more than 24 hours of consumption in a day."
Tasered with a text
So with there still being the same 24 hours in a day, more information is being circulated in the same amount of time, leading to something that has been titled as "information overload".
WHAT HAPPENS IN 60 SECONDS?
168 million emails sent
694,445 Google searches
695,000 Facebook status updates
370,000 Skype calls are made
98,000 tweets on Twitter
20,000 new posts on Tumblr
13,000 iPhone apps downloaded
6,600 new pictures on Flickr
1,500 new blog entries posted
600+ videos posted totalling over 25 hours duration on YouTube

And that is a problem that is beginning to get noticed.
"A lot of this is a user interface problem," says author and New York Times journalist Nick Bilton.
"Things are designed to really grab your attention. When you get a text message, your phone vibrates, it dings, you have to respond to it."
And what this means is that real life conversations are being interrupted by digital distractions.
Bilton added: "It's like if I wanted to have a conversation with you and I zapped you with a taser and held a stop sign in front of your face.
"It wouldn't be a nice way to talk to you."
But what is this information that is being received?
Take for example, the tweets passing through Twitter at a rate of around 100,000 a minute. Research commissioned by The Harvard Business Review says that only 36% of tweets from a user's feeds are worth reading.
And the use of the internet as a whole is being linked with addiction that could affect one in 10 people.
Those with the condition, a report found, felt similar effects to those addicted to alcohol, cocaine or cannabis.
Information society
But the internet is seen as something more integral to a modern way of life than those addictions.
A man works on a booth as preparations are under way for the CeBIT IT fair on February 28, 2011 in Hanover
Digital information has become an integral part of many people's lives
So much so that inventor of the world wide web Tim Berners-Lee believes that access to the web has become a human right.
"It's possible to live without the web," he told an MIT symposium.
"It's not possible to live without water. But if you've got water, then the difference between somebody who is connected to the web and is part of the information society, and someone who [is not] is growing bigger and bigger."
The influence of the internet has now grown so much that some people are going to extreme lengths to escape "overload".
Technology journalist Paul Miller has given up the internet for a year.
"Every conversation feels informed by the internet in some way, or like it will end up on the internet some way," he wrote.
If you want to comment on his escapades, you can reach him not on Twitter, or by email, but by phone or writing a letter to his PO Box.
To many people, this will feel almost nostalgically old-fashioned.
The world wide web is still only 23 years old.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Hla Myint Hla Myint Stay away from war mongers. 24 ်နစ. 2017.

အေသဝနာစ ဗာလနံ
6 Comments
Comments
Pauk Pauk
Pauk Pauk နမူနာဘူးေလးေတြယူခဲ႔ေပးပါအံုးေနာ ္
Remove
Thitsa Aung
Thitsa Aung ဆီကုန္​ယင္​မွာမယ္​​ေနာ္​
Remove
Ko Latt
Ko Latt ဒို ့ကပ႑ိတ
Remove
Hla Myint
Hla Myint A popular phrase
" Birds of the same feather flock together".
ပုလင္းတူ ဘူးဆို႕

Manage
Hla Myint
Hla Myint
ကိုယ့္အိမ္ကို ကိုယ္မီး ရိွ ု႕ တာ ဘာ
ျဖစ္လဲ

ကိုယ့္ ရြာ ကို ကိုယ္မီး ရိွ ု႕ တာ ဘာ  ျဖစ္ လဲ ဘာျပ ုလဲ

ကိုယ့္ရြာ က ကိုယ္ ထြက္ေျပးတာ ဘာ
ျဖစ္လဲ ဘာျပ ုလဲ
Manage
Hla Myint
Hla Myint Stay away from war mongers.
Manage

Friday, September 22, 2017

Our Lady falls from grace./23 sep. 2017.(Source Washington Post).



Democracy Dies in Darkness

SubscribeSign In

Newsletters & AlertsGift SubscriptionsContact UsHelp Desk

Opinions

Aung San Suu Kyi’s fall from the pedestal is an old story


Aung San Suu Kyi delivers a televised speech. (Aung Shine Oo/Associated Press)

By Anne Applebaum  ColumnistSeptember 22 at 5:41 PM

Few countries have ever been so closely associated with a single politician as Burma, whose public “face,” for many decades, was the brave and brilliant dissident Aung San Suu Kyi. I remember her appearance — via a prerecorded videocassette, smuggled out of the country — at the international women’s conference in Beijing in 1995. Aung San Suu Kyi had just been released from house arrest, but her speech was not about Burma, also known as Myanmar. Instead she used language designed to appeal to a surreally diverse audience, ranging from Indian activists and German feminists to Saudi women in abayas.

Even today, that speech is inspirational. Aung San Suu Kyi declared that “genuine tolerance requires an active effort to try to understand the point of view of others; it implies broad-mindedness and vision, as well as confidence in one’s own ability to meet new challenges without resorting to intransigence or violence.” In later years, she stuck to that nonviolent message, even when she was placed back under house arrest, and even when her political party was banned and persecuted.

But Aung San Suu Kyi is not a dissident anymore. In late 2010, the Burmese military junta (known by the enigmatic acronym SLORC) launched a democratic transition that eventually gave a victory to her party. She is no longer an activist but the de facto leader. She no longer speaks in generalities to an international audience, but in specifics to the Burmese.

She is also the most visible politician in a state whose public institutions and popular mentality were formed by many years of autocracy and dictatorship — a state where the military and police, though now further back in the shadows, still hold an enormous amount of economic and political power, controlling companies and land as well as ministries and armies. In this sense, she has much in common with other politicians and activists who led authoritarian or totalitarian countries during a transition to democracy: Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Lech Walesa in Poland, Boris Yeltsin in Russia, Patricio Aylwin in Chile, Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines, just to name a few.

Though very different, all of them faced the same structural problem: how to instill tolerance for democratic debate, freedom of speech and the press, respect for judicial independence and the rule of law in countries that were unused to these things or had never had them. All of them had rocky moments or faced coup attempts or corruption scandals. Some of them had some success. Others failed, and no wonder: Democratic values can take generations to instill — or can, as we have seen in the United States, grow rapidly weaker even in countries that have had them for generations.

Opinions newsletter

Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.

Sign up

All of those democratic heroes — with the possible exception of Mandela, who retired early — wound up with vastly diminished reputations. Aung San Suu Kyi now joins their number. For several years, as violence increased between the Burmese Buddhist majority and the Rohingya, a Muslim minority ethnic group whom many don’t consider to be citizens, she kept silent. In August, a Rohingya insurgent group attacked Burmese police posts; the Burmese army responded by burning villages and chasing hundreds of thousands of Rohingya civilians over the border into Bangladesh. In response, Aung San Suu Kyi condemned “all human rights violations and unlawful violence” but refused to criticize her own generals or admit any errors — a response that seems to have been popular among her constituents in Burma but has produced enormous disappointment among her former admirers around the world.

What happened to “broad-mindedness and vision,” or the refusal to bend to “intransigence or violence”? Perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi sympathizes with the popular view of the Rohingya as unwanted foreigners; more likely, she doesn’t control the army, she knows it could still overthrow her government and she doesn’t want to risk a breach with the generals. In truth, the real difference between Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995 and 2017 is the difference between theory and practice, opposition and power, the language of an international conference and the language of a country with an autocratic past. The story of her fall from the pedestal is an old story, it repeats itself regularly, and yet every time we are surprised.

In any case, it is pointless to call for her Nobel Prize to be withdrawn: This isn’t a game of symbols anymore. Those worried by the violence and the strange echo it is having in Muslim countries around the world should use real political tools to affect the situation. Governments with influence in Burma should seek contact with the army — bypassing Aung San Suu Kyi if necessary — offer to mediate, organize aid for the refugees and document the tragedy. Above all, they should try to reach Aung San Suu Kyi with political arguments, not pleas from old friends. This isn’t a debate about ideals or symbols; it’s a power struggle.

Read more from Anne Applebaum’s archive, follow her on Twitter orsubscribe to her updates on Facebook

Read more on this topic:

The Post’s View: When will Aung San Suu Kyi speak out against the violence in Burma?

The Post's View: This ethnic cleansing in Asia is the most brutal the world has seen in years

Christian Caryl: The Rohingya tragedy is turning into a global crisis

 Comments

Anne Applebaum writes a biweekly foreign affairs column for The Washington Post.

  Follow @anneapplebaum

Most Read

1

OpinionCNN’s Anderson Cooper brutalizes Sean Spicer

2

OpinionPresident Trump actually is making us crazy

3

OpinionThe other problem with Valerie Plame’s horrible anti-Semitic tweet

4

OpinionBlock grants would be a disaster. Here’s how we know.

5

OpinionRepublicans are going to sell their tax cuts with lies. Will we hold them accountable?

The story must be told.

Subscribe to The Washington Post

Try 1 month for $1

washingtonpost.com© 1996-2017 The Washington Post Help and Contact UsTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyPrint Products Terms of SaleDigital Products Terms of SaleSubmissions and Discussion PolicyRSS Terms of ServiceAd ChoicesView standard mobile site

of ethnic cleansing." But analysts say Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Myanmar and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has little if any control over the country's military forces that are enacting the brutal campaign against the Rohingy


Live TV 

Myanmar's military: The power Aung San Suu Kyi can't control

By Jamie Tarabay, CNN 

Updated 8:15 PM EDT, Thu September 21, 2017

Story highlights

Power over the military rests with the commander-in-chief who has complete control over Myanmar's security and police forcesMilitary has been at the helm of "clearance operations" in Rakhine state, sending hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing

(CNN)She's been the focus of the world's criticism, scrutiny and censure as hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims seek refuge in neighboring Bangladesh, escaping what the United Nations human rights chief has labeled a"textbook example of ethnic cleansing."

But analysts say Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Myanmar and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has little if any control over the country's military forces that are enacting the brutal campaign against the Rohingya.

Since August 25, when Rohingya insurgents attacked 30 police posts, killing 12 police officers, according to Myanmar state media, the military and its surrogates have cut a swathe through Rakhine State, targeting Rohingya Muslims in "clearance operations."

Rohingya who've fled have spoken of their homes being torched, of neighbors turning on neighbors, of relatives taken away never to be seen again.

The military junta, which ruled the country with an iron fist from 1962 until 2011 -- arresting democracy advocates including Suu Kyi, imposing martial law and killing protestors -- still controls the security forces, the police and key cabinet positions in the government. And there's nothing Suu Kyi can do about it.

"Under the Constitution the commander-in-chief (of Myanmar's Armed Forces) is his own boss, he doesn't report to Aung San Suu Kyi. He can't be fired," said Aaron Connelly, a research fellow in the East Asia Program at the Lowy Institute in Sydney.

"If the military has to choose between control and international respect, they will choose control. It's a question of how much they're willing to give up. We haven't seen much evidence that they're willing to give up anything beyond what they gave up in the 2008 constitution," he told CNN.

Still wielding control

In 2008 a new Constitution allocated a quarter of the seats in parliament to the military. It was the military's way of easing Myanmar's return from exile as a pariah state: constitutional reform, civilian government, and the restoring of Suu Kyi to public life. But also enshrined in the Constitution is the ability for the military to flex its muscle when it senses that those newfound freedoms might encroach on its hold over defense in Myanmar.

View this interactive content on CNN.com

Among the edicts in the document is the condition that no one with dual-citizen relations (including parents or children) can ever be president. Because both of Suu Kyi's adult sons are British citizens, as was her late husband, she was unable to assume the presidency. However, she is able to still largely play that role in a position that was created especially for her, State Counselor. During the 2015 elections she told a news conference that should her party win and form the government "I will be above the president. It's a very simple message."

In the Constitution, the role of the commander-in-chief -- who is the ultimate military authority. -- often overrides that of the President. Along with nominating military candidates for seats in both houses of parliament, the Constitution also allows the commander-in-chief, in the event of a state of emergency "the right to take over and exercise State sovereign power." The constitution also bans "retrospective" penal law -- an addition possibly meant to prevent the military from being prosecuted for past crimes, including the house arrest of Suu Kyi and the junta's disavowal of the 1990 elections that would have effectively routed the generals from power.

When she addressed diplomats in Myanmar on September 19, Suu Kyi stressed that her government was still young -- in power for a mere 18 months -- and efforts to bring democracy to the country were still fledgling.

"After half a century or more of authoritarian rule, now we are in the process of nurturing our nation," she said. "We are a young and fragile country facing many problems, but we have to cope with them all. We cannot just concentrate on the few."

The internationally-feted democracy advocate has had to endure the howls of outrage from around the world at the military's treatment of the Rohingya. For her military counterpart, Commander-in-Chief Sen. General Min Aung Hlaing, on the other hand, it's been business as usual.

While Suu Kyi chose to cancel a trip to the US to speak at the United Nations General Assembly to deal with the problems at home, Min Aung Hlaing has been hosting foreign diplomats, speaking to military audiences and receiving donations to a fund for people displaced by the "chaos" instigated by Rohingya insurgents.

His formal engagements are posted almost daily to his verified Facebook page, to more than 1.28 million followers.

A prolific Facebook account

On September 15, 2017 a post written in English quoted Min Aung Hlaing saying there had been 93 clashes with "extremist Bengalis" since August 25. The militants, the post claimed, intend to build a stronghold in a district in Rakhine State. "They have demanded recognition as Rohingya, which has never been an ethnic group in Myanmar. Bengali issue is a national cause and we need to be united in establishing the truth."

Earlier, on September 1, 2017, another post in English harkens back to the loss of "Rakhine ethnics" of Rakhine State in 1942, "in which Bengalis attacked, murdered and coerced them into leaving their homes. We will never let such a terrible occurrence happen again."

Both Suu Kyi and the military have said the violence in Rakhine State, which prompted the mass exodus of nearly half a million people, was instigated by Rohingya militants.

As well as refusing to publicly refer to the name Rohingya, Suu Kyi insists the violence and the displacement has affected many other people too.

There is long-held prejudice against the Rohingya among the people of Myanmar. Some Rohingya were originally brought in as laborers under British rule from 1824 to 1948 in what the British considered an internal migration because the area was part of British-administered India. Many Rohingya, however, say they are descendants of Muslim traders who can be traced back to the ninth century. In reality, there is likely to be a mix of ethnicities among them.

When the government of Myanmar passed a citizenship law in 1982, it said Rohingya could apply if they spoke an officially recognized language and could prove that their families had lived in the country before independence. But most Rohingya were never granted the paperwork to prove their roots and are effectively stateless. They did not make the list of the 135 recognized ethnicities in Myanmar. In his public statements Min Aung Hlaing doesn't refer to Rohingya by that name, using instead the term "Bengali."

Arms sales and weapons embargos

The military has avoided condemnation from Western nations precisely because it is still wending its way out of isolation. For decades, countries like the US had limited diplomacy with Myanmar, assigning defense attaches instead of ambassadors to the US embassy and attempting to maintain contact while trying not to be tainted by the military's disregard for human rights.

Under the Obama administration the military relationship between the two countries focused largely on training the military in rule of law, human rights and disaster relief, with the occasional participation in multilateral exercises -- nothing the military would be too concerned to lose, said Aaron Connelly at the Lowy Institute.

"We never got to the point where those relationships existed and so because we never got there, we don't have the leverage over the military to be able to say, by cutting off our relationship with you we can make you an international pariah. We never developed the carrots and now all we're really left with are sticks," he said.

There are still US and EU arms embargoes against Myanmar, but it continues to receive weapons and training from allies including China, India, Russia and even Israel.

"It's very murky, it's one of the least transparent countries in Asia when it comes to these things," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher on arms and military spending at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

"Looking at all the different sources you get a picture of China being by far the most important supplier. The weapons we see showing up, the bigger ones, are Chinese, all land, air and seacraft."

Russia, he says, supplies helicopters and light aircraft, India supplies weapons to Myanmar's navy and despite the EU ban, some European equipment makes it through Wezeman said, although not with the blessing of those countries.

"It's indirect. It's mainly engines, sometimes it's for Chinese ships that end up in Myanmar. They're produced under license in China but they're supposed to inform the European countries," he said, adding that the engines may not be considered to be weapons.

"When India supplied equipment to Myanmar including radar, some of those radars were based on a Dutch design. The Dutch made it very clear that if there was Dutch technology and Dutch components that India was breaking any agreements it had because those things were considered weapons." The Indians, he said, responded that they were all Indian-made.

The business of war

Defense spending makes up 14% of Myanmar's budget, which even includes arts funding for propaganda projects. But even during its economic and political isolation Myanmar was able to buy weapons and hardware because of the controlling interest the ruling junta had in several government monopolies.

Some of their business properties include Myanmar Economic Corporation, which maintains holdings in manufacturing, telecommunication, transport and even gin. Myanmar Economic Holdings Limitedbrings the ruling generals lucrative returns on cigarette and petroleum imports.

The generals "insert themselves in various parts of the economy and use this to enrich their shareholders," said Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, a contributor to a 2015 Transparency International report on Myanmar, quoted in the Financial Times. "Despite the political changes in Myanmar, the military remains solidly in control, and its books are still closed to public scrutiny."

World leaders are now being urged to implement sanctions against the military itself, to try to push the ruling officers to end their campaign against the Rohingya. Sen. John McCain said he plans to remove language from a defense authorization bill that would have expanded training exercises between the US military and Myanmar's.

"While I had hoped the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) could contribute to positive reform in Burma,"McCain said in his statement, "I can no longer support expanding military-to-military cooperation given the worsening humanitarian crisis and human rights crackdown against the Rohingya people, and will seek to remove this language when the Senate begins debating the NDAA."

Australia's government, which pledged more than $53 million ($66 million Australian) in aid for Myanmar in 2017-2018, has said its agreement with Myanmar was aimed at helping the country's transition to a democracy. The UK said it would suspend its training program for the military because of the violence in Rakhine State "until there is an acceptable resolution to the current situation," a spokesman for the British government said on Tuesday. The UK government called on Myanmar's military to "take immediate steps to stop the violence in Rakhine and ensure the protection of all civilians, to allow full access for humanitarian aid." Five military trainee officers attending courses in the UK were being sent back to Myanmar, the country's military information office posted on its official Facebook page. They were being "forced to return" after the UK suspended the program, the post said. The military would be bringing them home as quickly as possible, adding that "no trainees," including those who sent under previous agreements with the UK, "will be sent to Britain anymore."

No weapons embargo for countries like Israel

Because Myanmar is subject to a weapons embargo from the European Union and the United States, it has turned to other suppliers including India and Israel for its needs, amid a push to become less reliant on China, wrote Myanmar expert Andrew Selth.

In Israel, human rights activists have petitioned the Israeli High Court to halt sales of military weapons and equipment to Myanmar. Eitay Mack, the lawyer presenting the petition said that Israel has been opaque over the nature of its longstanding relationship with Myanmar, but the internet has provided his legal team with significant information that is public and hard for Israel to ignore.

"Israel could be considered as compliant in crimes against humanity, it's enough that Israel knows that this is happening and the weapons and training it sends to Myanmar could be used for its crimes," Mack told CNN.

Sen. General Min Aung Hlaing visited Israel in 2015, toured military and naval bases, and published everything on his Facebook page, Mack said. "It was secret in Israel but then I found it on Facebook. It's a public thing and hard for them to argue."

During the 2015 visit the Myanmar generals "disclosed that they had purchased Super Dvora patrol boats from Israel, and there was talk of additional purchases," an article in Israel's Ha'aretz noted.

Min Aung Hlaing's proclivity for posting on Facebook revealed visits to Myanmar by Michel Ben Baruch, the head of Sibat, Israel's defense export unit. Israeli company TAR Ideal Concepts, whose leadership includes a former head of the Israeli police, had published advertisements, Mack said, that includedimages of forces undergoing training. The post is titled "special weapons systems in Asia," but the flag of Myanmar is visible in one of the images.

Asked for comment about the lawsuit and the state of sales to Myanmar, the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry told CNN: "Israel denies categorically the false information in the media regarding a so called involvement in the tragedy in the Rakhine province in Myanmar." The Israeli defense ministry said it "does not comment on matters relating to defense exports."

What the military wants

Longtime Myanmar observer Andrew Selth says the military does not want to run Myanmar, but it does intend to protect its people and its position in the country. Its nationalism will "be cited to justify military operations against ethnic armed groups and, if considered necessary, the Rohingya," he writes.

What should be of great concern for Myanmar, says Selth, is the possibility that people within the armed forces want to "slow down the reform process or to preserve certain perks and privileges."

The older officers grew wealthy through the military's control over the government, and "it has been suggested, for example, that some younger officers resent the fact that current and proposed changes to Myanmar society may deny them the opportunities for personal enrichment enjoyed by their predecessors."

For as long as experts can see, the military will remain the real power in Myanmar, and there will be little Aung San Suu Kyi can do about it.

View on CNN

© 2017 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | AdChoices