Save Burma

အာဏာရွင္စနစ္ က်ဆံုးမွ တတိုင္းျပည္လံုး စစ္မွန္တဲ့ ဒီမိုကေရစီကို ခံစားရမယ္

Armed Burmese Uprising Morally Justified: Chomsky

leave a comment »

Armed Burmese Uprising Morally Justified: Chomsky


Monday, July 14, 2008

Noam Chomsky, one of the most well-known political and social critics in the world, said an armed uprising against Burma’s military regime is a “likely consequence” for the hardships inflicted upon the Burmese people.

Chomsky, in an interview with the Bangkok Post published on Monday, said, “An armed uprising would have to evaluate with care the likely consequences for the people who are suffering.”

The ruling generals have “a good thing going for themselves,” he said. They have nothing to gain by yielding power, and they appear capable of holding on to their power, he said.

“So that’s what they’ll probably do,” he said, “until the military erodes from within.”

Asked if a popular uprising could be successful in Burma, he said it would be a massacre.

“Mass non-violent protests are predicated on the humanity of the oppressor. Quite often it doesn’t work. Sometimes it does, in unexpected ways,” he said.

A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky said it’s appropriate for people to rise up against a brutal government, but it’s not for him to tell people what to do.

“As for assassinating leaders, the question is very much like asking whether it is appropriate to kill murderers,” said Chomsky, who will turn 80 in December.

“They should be apprehended by non-violent means, if possible. If they pull a gun and start shooting, it’s legitimate to kill them in self-defense, if there is no lesser option.”

Chomsky said that China, the biggest supporter of the Burmese generals, would likely tolerate the overthrow of the junta. “Maybe even welcome it,” he said.

The choice of a non-violent uprising depends on an intimate knowledge of a society and its various constituents, he said.

Looking back over US involvement in Burma, he recalled that as part of US cold war policy, the Eisenhower administration supported thousands of Chinese nationalists [Kuomintang] troops when they invaded northern Burma.

As a result, the Chinese armed and supported insurgent groups in the region which led to a 1962 coup and the shift of power to the military, he said.

He said the US, Britain and Israel later sold weapons and invested in oil production in Burma to strengthen the military government.

“These matters are unreported and unknown in the US, apart from specialists and activists,” he said, “because they interfere too dramatically with the doctrine that ‘we are good’ and ‘they are evil,’ the foundation of virtually every state propaganda system.”

For the full interview, see the Bangkok Post:

URL of this article:


‘Resonant and unwavering’

Bangkok Post, July 14, 2008

Noam Chomsky talks to the ‘Bangkok Post’ about the Vietnam War, Burma and the future of the human race


He opposed the Vietnam War long before it was fashionable to do so. He revolutionised the field of linguistics and helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology. He changed the way scientists approach the study of the human mind.

His “Chomsky Hierarchy” is taught in basic computer science because it offers insight into the nature of how languages are structured. His theories of Generative and Universal Grammar indicate that the human mind comes hard-wired with default settings that enable infants to quickly learn any language spoken around them.

When the US dropped the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Chomsky walked off into the woods to be alone and contemplate what he later called “one of the most unspeakable crimes in history”.

For the last 50 years Avram Noam Chomsky, now in his 80th year, has been a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was voted No. 1 in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll, a list of the 100 most important living public intellectuals, compiled in November, 2005 by Prospect Magazine of the UK and Foreign Policy of the US on the basis of a readers’ ballot consisting of more than 20,000 votes.

Chomsky was followed by, in order, Unberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Krugman, Jurgen Habermas, Amartya Sen, Jared Diamond and Salman Rushdie. Further evidence of the quality and resonance of his work comes from the 1992 Arts and Humanities Citation Index, which noted Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from the 1980 to 1992 period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar during any period.

Because of his universal appeal and academic accolades, Chomsky is highly desired as a lecturer and speaker almost everywhere in the world, giving him a unique ability like few people have to cut across all political lines and be welcome and desired everywhere, if for no other reason than you can’t help but respect somebody whose convictions are resonant and unwavering, even if you disagree with them.

Chomsky took the time to answer questions for the Bangkok Post, providing some fascinating answers about the Vietnam War and the current situation in Burma.

You opposed the Vietnam War long before it was fashionable. When and why did you make that decision? Do you feel you made a difference?

I opposed the Vietnam war from the mid-1940s, when the French invaded, a few years later receiving direct US support. But I did not do much beyond signing statements and the like until 1962, when the back pages of the New York Times casually reported that the US Air Force was flying a large proportion of the bombing missions against South Vietnam, with the planes disguised with SVN markings. At that point I realised that I had better learn more about this, began to look into it more carefully, and had to make a hard decision. I had enough experience with political activism to know that if I became involved, it would soon grow to be a major undertaking, with few limits, and I would have to give up a lot that meant a great deal to me. I decided to plunge in, not without reluctance. It took years of hard and painful work of protest and resistance before a real anti-war movement developed. There is no doubt that it made a difference. One illustration comes from the Pentagon Papers, the final section, dealing with the immediate reaction to the Tet revolt; in imperial terminology, it is called the “Tet offensive”, on the tacit assumption that a revolt against our military occupation is aggression. The government considered sending several hundred thousand more troops to South Vietnam, but decided not to because of concern that they would need the troops for civil disorder control at home in the likely event of a mass uprising of unprecedented proportions. We also know that by then 70 per cent of the US population felt that the war was “fundamentally wrong and immoral”, not “a mistake” – while intellectual elites debated whether Washington’s “bungling efforts to do good” were a “mistake” that was becoming too costly to us (Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, at the outer limits of dissidence within the mainstream).

How much any one individual contributed to the radical change of consciousness and understanding, and the willingness to do something about state crimes, it is hard to say.

You have said the US played a significant role in actions that led to the installation of the Burmese junta back in 1962. What’s the subtext, the background we’re not understanding: What are the consequences of the enormous UK investment in Burma, of earlier US weapons sales, of recent Israeli weapons sales to the junta – and of Chevron Oil’s continued supply of millions and millions of dollars in oil money to the junta?

Burma had one of the few elected governments in the region in the 1950s, and was intent on pursuing a neutralist course. The Eisenhower administration was carrying out vigorous efforts to enlist the governments in the region into its Cold War crusades. As part of this broad campaign of subversion and violence, Washington installed thousands of heavily armed Chinese Nationalist troops in northern Burma to carry out cross-border operations into China. Burma vigorously objected, but in vain. The China forces began arming and supporting insurgent minorities in that turbulent region. In reaction, power within Burma began to shift to the military, leading finally to the 1962 coup. The matter is discussed by Audrey and George Kahin, Subversion as Foreign Policy. George Kahin was one of the leading Southeast Asian scholars, virtually the founder of the academic discipline in the US. The consequences of the US-UK-Israeli operations you describe are, of course, to strengthen the military junta. These matters are unreported and unknown in the US, apart from specialists and activists, because they interfere too dramatically with the doctrine that “we are good” and “they are evil”, the foundation of virtually every state propaganda system.

Do you think there’s any chance of a popular uprising being successful in Burma, or do you think those who rise up will only be slaughtered because there’s no advantage for the generals to give up their power?

I do not know enough to be able to answer with any confidence, but I suspect that now it would be a slaughter. On the other hand, the military leaders are ageing, and there may be popular forces developing that can erode their power from within.

Was the Kingdom of Thailand morally justified to host US military bases during the Vietnam War? What lasting effects did the Vietnam War have for Thailand and the region? Is that part of why Thailand is an island of relative easy life, compared to neighbours with more severe problems?

Thailand’s involvement in the US wars in Indochina was a disgrace. I presume Thais, at least some of them, made profit from their participation in the destruction of Indochina. I know that Japan and particularly South Korea gained very substantially. It helped spur their “economic miracles”. To evaluate the lasting effects we have to imagine what Southeast Asia would have been without the sadistic Western (mostly US) interventions of the postwar period – not to speak of what happened before. That’s a topic for a carefully researched book, not a brief discussion – and it would still be highly speculative, by necessity.

Do you find George W. Bush and his wife Laura calling for change in Burma insincere? Do you think the US president’s action on behalf of the suffering and the marginalised in Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis would be more justifiable on moral grounds than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Bush likes to posture as a deeply religious Christian. Perhaps he has even looked at the Gospels. If so, he knows that the famous definition of the hypocrite in the Gospels could have been written with him in mind. One can think of all kinds of ways in which the Bush couple could show their sincerity, were it to exist.

If Saddam Hussein had given some money to hungry children it would have been more justifiable on moral grounds than his gassing of Kurds in Halabja. The same principles hold in the case of Negris vs Iraq-Afghanistan.

What do you think China‘s reaction would be if an internal uprising in Burma was successful?

China would likely tolerate, maybe even welcome, the overthrowing of the junta. There was, of course, a significant US role in actions that elicited the military coup that installed the still-ruling tyranny. But I don’t know how much that bears on the present situation either.

Can you offer any insight into the behaviour of the Burmese generals, their motivations and how things are likely to work out for the people of Burma?

The rulers have a good thing going for themselves, nothing to gain by yielding power and no major risks in using it violently. So that’s what they’ll probably do, until the military erodes from within. Mass non-violent protest is predicated on the humanity of the oppressor. Quite often it doesn’t work. Sometimes it does, in unexpected ways. But judgements about that would have to be based on intimate knowledge of the society and its various strands.

If a regime is so terrible that its generals loot the wealth of the country’s resources for their personal gain, carry out murders, political imprisonment and forced labour, is there a moral justification for an armed uprising of the suffering people?

There certainly is, in my view, with one qualification: An armed uprising would have to evaluate with care the likely consequences for the people who are suffering. I think it’s appropriate for people to rise up, but it’s not for me to tell people to risk mass murder. As for assassinating leaders, the question is very much like asking whether it is appropriate to kill murderers. They should be apprehended by non-violent means, if possible. If they pull a gun and start shooting, it’s legitimate to kill them in self-defence, if there is no lesser option.

Would you give any examples of what could happen if the principle of universality were applied in the world today, between nations that are in conflict?

One example is that Bush, Cheney, Blair, and a host of others would be facing Nuremberg-style tribunals. And the observation generalises very broadly.

What are the greatest dangers facing our human species in the world today and what can we most effectively do about them?

There are two dangers that could reach as far as survival of the species: Nuclear war and environmental disaster.

About nuclear war, we know exactly what to do. In fact, the World Court has ruled that it is a legal obligation of the signers of the non-proliferation treaty to live up to their obligation to eliminate all nuclear weapons. And the non-signers can be brought in as well. To give an example that is highly relevant right now, the US population is overwhelmingly in favour of establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel. The US and the UK are formally committed to this policy. When they tried to construct a thin legal cover for their invasion of Iraq, they appealed to Security Council resolution 687, which calls upon Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The US-UK invaders claimed that it had not done so. Resolution 687 also commits the signers to establish an NWFZ in the region. If the US were a functioning democracy, in which public opinion influenced policy, the exceedingly hazardous confrontation between the US and Iran could be mitigated, perhaps terminated.

Naturally, none of this can be reported or discussed, and it is inconceivable that any viable political candidate would even hint at the stand of the overwhelming majority of the population. One may recall a remark of Gandhi’s when he was asked what he thought of Western civilisation. His response was that it might be a good idea. The same is true of “democracy promotion”, which, if sincere, would begin at home.

How to stave off the threat of severe environmental catastrophe is less clear, though some measures are obvious: Conservation, research and development of renewable energy, measures to cut back emissions sharply, and others. What is eminently clear is that the longer we delay in addressing these problems, the more grave will be the consequences for future generations.

Stuart Alan Becker, author and a longtime journalist in Asia, is working on a history of US foreign policy since World War Two, and a book containing a lively exchange of correspondence with Professor Chomsky, called ‘Letters to Chomsky’.

ေခတ္ၿပိဳင္ ဂ်ာနယ္

အေမရိကန္ႏုိင္ငံ မက္ဆာခ်ဴးဆက္စက္မႈတကၠသိုလ္ ပါေမာကၡ Mr. Noam Chomsky ႏွင့္ ထုိင္းႏုိင္ငံ ဘန္ေကာက္ပုိ႔စ္သတင္းစာ ေမးျမန္းခန္းမွ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံဆုိင္ရာ ေကာက္ႏုတ္ခ်က္

အသက္ (၈၀) တန္း ရွိေနၿပီျဖစ္သည့္ ပါေမာကၡ Mr. Avram Noam Chomsky သည္ ဘာသာေဗဒ ပညာရွင္၊ အေတြးအေခၚပညာရွင္၊ ႏုိင္ငံေရးလႈပ္ရွားသူ၊ စာေရးဆရာ၊ ကထိက စသည့္ ဂုဏ္ပုဒ္ မ်ားႏွင့္ ေက်ာ္ၾကားသူျဖစ္သည္။ သူ၏ စာတန္းမ်ား၊ သေဘာတရား အယူအဆမ်ားေၾကာင့္ ႏုိင္ငံတကာ တကၠသိုလ္ ပညာတတ္အသုိင္းအ၀န္းႏွင့္ သိပၸံပညာ အသုိင္းအ၀န္းတုိ႔တြင္ ေက်ာ္ၾကား သည့္ ပညာရွင္တဦးျဖစ္သည္။

ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံ ဗီယက္နမ္စစ္ႏွင့္ လူသားအနာဂတ္ဆုိင္ရာ ကိစၥမ်ားႏွင့္ပတ္သက္ၿပီး ပါေမာကၡ Mr. Noam Chomsky အား ထုိင္းႏုိင္ငံ ဘန္ေကာက္ပုိ႔စ္သတင္းစာက ေမးျမန္းခ်က္ကုိ ဇူလုိင္ (၁၄) ရက္ထုတ္ ဘန္ေကာက္ပုိ႔စ္ သတင္းစာတြင္ ေဖာ္ျပထားသည္။ ထုိေမးျမန္းခ်က္မ်ားထဲမွ ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္သည့္ အပုိင္းကုိ ေကာက္ႏုတ္ ဘာသာျပန္ထားျခင္းျဖစ္သည္။

ေမး – ၁၉၆၂ ခုႏွစ္မွာ ျမန္မာျပည္ကို စစ္အစိုးရ အာဏာသိမ္းေစမယ့္ လႈပ္ရွားမႈေတြမွာ အေမရိကန္ အစိုးရအေနနဲ႔ အေရးပါတဲ့ အခန္းက႑ကေန ပါ၀င္လႈပ္ရွားခဲ့တယ္လို႔ ဆရာ ေျပာခဲ့တယ္ေနာ္။ က်ေနာ္တို႔ နားမလည္တဲ့ ဇာတ္ကြက္တို႔၊ ေနာက္ေၾကာင္းတို႔က ဘာေတြပါလဲ။ ယူေကႏုိင္ငံက ျမန္မာျပည္မွာ အႀကီးအက်ယ္ ရင္းႏွီးျမႇဳပ္ႏွံတာတို႔၊ ေစာေစာပိုင္းမွာ အေမရိကန္က လက္နက္ ေရာင္းတာတို႔၊ မၾကာေသးခင္က စစ္အစိုးရကို အစၥေရးက လက္နက္ေရာင္းတာတို႔လိုမ်ိဳးေတြရဲ႕ အက်ိဳးဆက္က ဘာေတြမ်ားျဖစ္မလဲ။ စစ္အစိုးရကို ေရနံနဲ႔ပတ္သက္ၿပီး ရွယ္ဗရြန္ ေရနံကုမၸဏီက ေဒၚလာေတြ သန္းေပါင္းမ်ားစြာ ေထာက္ပံ့ေပးေနတာမ်ိဳးရဲ႕ အက်ိဳးဆက္ကေရာ ဘာပါလဲ။
ေျဖ – ၁၉၅၀ ပတ္၀န္းက်င္ေလာက္က ျမန္မာအစိုးရဟာ အေရြးခ်ယ္ခံအစိုးရအဖြဲ႕နည္းနည္းထဲက အစိုးရျဖစ္ၿပီး ၾကားေန၀ါဒ က်င့္သုံးလုိတဲ့သေဘာရွိတယ္။ အဲဒီအခ်ိန္ အုိင္ဆင္ေဟာင္၀ါ အေမရိ ကန္ အစိုးရကလည္း အာရွႏုိင္ငံေတြကုိ စစ္ေအးတုိက္ပြဲထဲ ဆြဲသြင္းဖုိ႔ အားသြန္ခြန္စိုက္ ႀကိဳးပမ္းေန တယ္။ အဲသလုိ အၾကမ္းဖက္လုပ္ရပ္၊ အစိုးရ ျဖဳတ္ခ်ေရးလုပ္ရပ္ေတြ ေျခလွမ္းက်ယ္က်ယ္နဲ႔ လုပ္ေနမႈရဲ႕ အစိတ္အပုိင္း တရပ္အေနနဲ႔ ၀ါရွင္တန္အစိုးရဟာ လက္နက္ ျပည့္ျပည့္စံုစံု ကိုင္ေဆာင္ ထားတဲ့ တ႐ုတ္ျဖဴတပ္ဖြဲ႕ေတြကို တ႐ုတ္ႏိုင္ငံတြင္း နယ္စပ္စစ္ဆင္ေရးေတြလုပ္ဖို႔ ျမန္မာျပည္ ေျမာက္ပိုင္းကို သြင္းပါေလေရာ။ ဒီကိစၥကို ျမန္မာဘက္က တားဖို႔ အစြမ္းကုန္ႀကိဳးစားတယ္။ ဒါေပ မယ့္ တားလို႔မရဘူး။ တ႐ုတ္ျဖဴေတြက မၿငိမ္မသက္ျဖစ္ေနတဲ့ ျမန္မာျပည္ေျမာက္ပိုင္းက တိုင္းရင္း သား ေသာင္းက်န္းသူေတြကို လက္နက္နဲ႔ အေထာက္အပံ့ေတြ ေပးတယ္။ ဒီေတာ့ အျပန္အလွန္ အေနနဲ႔ ေနာက္ဆံုး ျမန္မာႏုိင္ငံမွာ စစ္တပ္လက္ထဲ အာဏာေရာက္သြားၿပီး ေနာက္ဆုံး ၁၉၆၂ ခုမွာ အာဏာသိမ္းတဲ့ထိ ျဖစ္ခဲ့ပါတယ္။ အစိုးရျဖဳတ္ခ်ေရး လုပ္ရပ္ကို ႏိုင္ငံျခားေရးမူ၀ါဒအျဖစ္ ေအာ္ဒ ေရးနဲ႔ ေဂ်ာ့ခ်္ကဟင္တို႔က ဒီကိစၥကို ေဆြးေႏြးၾကတယ္။ ေဂ်ာ့ခ်္ကဟင္က နာမည္ေက်ာ္ အေရွ႕ ေတာင္အာရွ ပညာရွွင္ေတြထဲမွာ တေယာက္အပါအ၀င္ပဲ။ အေမရိကန္ျပည္ေထာင္စုက ပညာေရး စည္းမ်ဥ္းကို တည္ေထာင္သူလို႔ေတာင္ တင္စားေျပာႏုိင္သူျဖစ္တယ္။ ခင္ဗ်ားေျပာခဲ့တဲ့ အေမရိကန္၊ ယူေကနဲ႔ အစၥေရးတို႔ လုပ္ေဆာင္ခ်က္ေတြရဲ႕ အက်ိဳးဆက္ေတြကေတာ့ ျမန္မာစစ္အစိုးရကို ပိုၿပီး အင္အားေတာင့္တင္းသြားေစတာေပါ့။ အဲဒီကိစၥေတြကို အထူး ကၽြမ္းက်င္သူေတြနဲ႔ ႏိုင္ငံေရး လႈပ္ရွားသူေတြကလြဲၿပီး အေမရိကန္မွာ အစီရင္ခံခဲ့တာမ်ိဳးလည္း မရွိခဲ့ဘူး။ လူမသိခဲ့ဘူး။ ဘာျဖစ္ လို႔လည္းဆိုေတာ့ အေမရိကန္ေတြက “ငါတို႔ပဲေကာင္းတယ္”၊ “သူမ်ားေတြဆိုးတယ္” ဆိုတဲ့
အယူ၀ါဒစြဲနဲ႔ အကဲပိုပို ၾကား၀င္စြက္ဖက္တတ္လို႔ပဲ။ ဒီအယူ၀ါဒဟာ တကယ္လည္း ျပည္နယ္ တိုင္းရဲ႕ ၀ါဒျဖန္႔ခ်ိေရးစနစ္ အုတ္ျမစ္ပဲေလ။

ေမး – ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ လူထုအံုႂကြမႈႀကီး ျဖစ္မယ္ဆိုရင္ ေအာင္ျမင္ႏိုင္မယ့္ အေနအထားမ်ိဳး ရွိလား။ ဒါမွမဟုတ္ စစ္ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေတြအေနနဲ႔ အာဏာကို စြန္႔လႊတ္လုိ႔ အက်ိဳးအျမတ္မရွိတဲ့အတြက္ ဆူပူ အံုႂကြတဲ့သူေတြ အသတ္ခံရမယ္လို႔ ထင္လား။
ေျဖ – က်ေနာ္ဒီေမးခြန္းကို ပိုင္ပိုင္ႏိုင္ႏိုင္ ေျဖရေလာက္ေအာင္လည္း ေသေသခ်ာခ်ာ မသိဘူး။ ဒါေပမယ့္ အခုအခ်ိန္မ်ိဳးမွာေတာ့ အသတ္ခံရမယ္လို႔ ထင္တာပဲ။ တဖက္က ၾကည့္မယ္ဆိုရင္လည္း စစ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြလည္း အသက္ေတြ ရလာၿပီဆိုေတာ့ သူတုိ႔အာဏာကို ပြန္းပဲ့ေစမယ့္ ထင္ရွား တဲ့ ဖီဆန္ေရး အင္အားစုေတြ စစ္တပ္ထဲမွာ ေပၚလာႏုိင္ပါတယ္။

ေမး – ေဂ်ာ့ခ်္ဘုရွ္နဲ႔ ဇနီးေလာ္ရာတို႔က ျမန္မာျပည္တြင္း ေျပာင္းလဲေရးအတြက္ ေတာင္းဆိုေနတဲ့ အေပၚမွာ မ႐ိုးသားတဲ့အခ်က္မ်ား ေတြ႕မိလား။ ဆိုင္ကလုန္းလြန္ကာလ ဒုကၡခံေနရတဲ့ ျမန္မာ ျပည္သူေတြကုိယ္စား အေမရိကန္သမၼတ ဘုရွ္လုပ္ရပ္ေတြဟာ အီရတ္တို႔ အာဖဂန္နစၥတန္တို႔ကို က်ဴးေက်ာ္တာမ်ိဳးဆိုတာထက္ လူ႔က်င့္၀တ္အရ တရားမွ်တေရးကို ပိုၿပီးေဇာင္းေပးတယ္လို႔ ထင္ပါသလား။
ေျဖ – ဘုရွ္က ယံုၾကည္မႈ နက္႐ႈိင္းတဲ့ ခရစ္ယာန္တေယာက္အျဖစ္ ဟန္ျပရတာ သေဘာက်တဲ့ လူမ်ိဳး။ ခရစ္ေတာ္ရဲ႕ အေဟာေတြကိုလည္း သူေလ့လာရင္ ေလ့လာခဲ့မွာပါ။ ေလ့လာခဲ့မယ္ဆိုရင္ ခရစ္ေတာ္အေဟာမွာ ေၾကာင္သူေတာ္ဆိုတဲ့ နာမည္ေက်ာ္ အဓိပၸာယ္ဖြင့္ဆိုခ်က္ကို သူသိမယ္။ အဲဒီ ဖြင့္ဆိုခ်က္ကို သူ႔ေခါင္းထဲမွာ ေကာင္းေကာင္းမွတ္ထားတာျဖစ္မယ္။ ဘုရွ္ေမာင္ႏွံအေနနဲ႔ သူတို႔မွာ ႐ိုးသားမႈဆိုတာ ရွိေနရင္ ႐ိုးသားမႈကို ျပႏိုင္မယ့္ နည္းလမ္းေတြ အမ်ားႀကီး ရွိေနတယ္ဆိုတာ ေတြးၾကည့္လို႔ရတာပဲ။ ဆဒၵမ္ဟူစိန္အေနနဲ႔ ဟာလက္ဘ္ဂ်ာမွာ ကာ့ဒ္လူမ်ိဳးေတြကို ဓာတ္ေငြ႕ေပး သတ္တာထက္ ငတ္မြတ္ေနတဲ့ ကေလးေတြကို ေငြေၾကးနည္းနည္းပါးပါး ေထာက္ပံ့မယ္ဆို လူ႔က်င့္၀တ္အရ ပိုၿပီး ဆီေလ်ာ္တာေပါ့ေလ။ နာဂစ္နဲ႔ အီရတ္၊ အာဖဂန္အေရးေတြမွာလည္း အလားတူ ျဖစ္ရပ္ေတြ ရွိေနတာကို ေတြ႕ရတယ္။

ေမး – ျမန္မာႏိုင္ငံမွာ ျပည္တြင္းအုံႂကြမႈ ေအာင္ျမင္သြားမယ္ဆိုရင္ တ႐ုတ္ႏိုင္ငံက ဘယ္လို တုံ႔ျပန္မယ္လို႔ ထင္ထားလဲ။
ေျဖ – တ႐ုတ္ႏိုင္ငံကေတာ့ စစ္အစိုးရ ျပဳတ္သြားတာကို သည္းခံေနမယ္လို႔ ယူဆရတာပဲ။ ႀကိဳဆို တာမ်ိဳးေတာင္ ျဖစ္ႏိုင္တယ္။ လက္ရွိ အာဏာရွင္ စစ္အစိုးရ တက္လာေအာင္ အာဏာသိမ္း လႈပ္ရွားမႈေတြမွာ အေမရိကန္အစိုးရရဲ႕ အေရးပါတဲ့ က႑ရွိခဲ့ဘူးတယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ အဲဒီအခ်က္က လက္ရွိအေျခအေနမွာ ဘယ္အတိုင္းအတာအထိ အေရးပါေနလည္းဆိုတာေတာ့ က်ေနာ္မသိဘူး။

ေမး – ျမန္မာစစ္ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေတြရဲ႕ အမူအက်င့္ေတြ၊ စိတ္၀င္စားမႈေတြ၊ ျမန္မာျပည္သူေတြအတြက္ ဘယ္လိုဟာေတြက အဆင္ေျပသြားေစႏိုင္မလဲ ဆိုတာေတြကို ထဲထဲ၀င္၀င္ ေျပာျပႏိုင္တာမ်ား ရွိမလား။
ေျဖ – စစ္ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေတြ သူတို႔အတြက္ေတာ့ ေကာင္းေနတာပဲေလ။ အာဏာစြန္႔လႊတ္လုိက္ရလို႔ လည္း သူတို႔ ဘာမွအက်ိဳးမရွိဘူးေလ။ အာဏာကုိ အၾကမ္းပတမ္း သုံးတဲ့အတြက္လည္း အႏၲရာယ္ ႀကီးႀကီးမားမား မရွိပါဘူး။ တပ္တြင္း အာဏာဖီဆန္မႈ မေပၚမခ်င္း ဒီတုိင္းသြားေနမွာပါပဲ။ အၾကမ္း မဖက္ဘဲ အစုလိုက္ အၿပံဳလိုက္ ဆႏၵျပၾကတယ္ဆိုတာ ဖိႏွိပ္သူရဲ႕ ကိုယ္ခ်င္းစာတရားအေပၚမွာ အေျခခံတယ္ေလ။ အၾကမ္းမဖက္ဘဲ ဆႏၵျပတယ္ဆိုတာလည္း ေအာင္ျမင္ခဲပါတယ္။ တခါတေလ က်ေတာ့လည္း ေမွ်ာ္လင့္မထားတဲ့ နည္းလမ္းမ်ိဳးေတြနဲ႔ ေအာင္ျမင္တတ္ျပန္တယ္။ ဒီလို ကိစၥရပ္ မ်ိဳးနဲ႔ ပတ္သက္တဲ့ ဆံုးျဖတ္ခ်က္ေတြကလည္း လူ႔အဖြဲ႕အစည္းနဲ႔ လူ႔အဖြဲ႕အစည္းမွာရွိတဲ့ အလႊာ အသီးသီးရဲ႕ တကုိယ္ေရ အသိပညာေပၚမွာ အေျခခံမွျဖစ္မယ္။

ေမး – စစ္အစိုးရကလည္း ေတာ္ေတာ္ေၾကာက္ဖို႔ေကာင္းတဲ့အတြက္ ဗိုလ္ခ်ဳပ္ေတြကလည္း ႏိုင္ငံရဲ႕ သဘာ၀ အရင္းအျမစ္ေတြကို ကိုယ္က်ိဳးစီးပြားအတြက္ ခိုး၀ွက္တယ္။ လူသတ္မႈေတြ က်ဴးလြန္ တယ္။ ႏိုင္ငံေရး အက်ဥ္းခ်မႈေတြ၊ အဓမၼ လုပ္အားေပးခိုင္းေစတာေတြ ရွိတယ္ဆိုရင္ ခံရတဲ့ ျပည္သူေတြက လက္နက္ကိုင္ ပုန္ကန္ထႂကြၾကတာကုိ လူ႔က်င့္၀တ္အရ မွ်တတယ္လုိ႔ ေျပာႏုိင္ ပါသလား။
ေျဖ – က်ေနာ့္အျမင္ေျပာရရင္ေတာ့ ကန္႔သတ္ခ်က္တခုနဲ႔ မွ်တတယ္လို႔ ေျပာႏုိင္တာေပါ့။ ခံစားေနရတဲ့ ျပည္သူေတြအတြက္ ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲ ႀကံဳရမယ့္ ျပႆနာေတြကုိ လက္နက္ကုိင္ အုံႂကြမႈက သတိ ထား အကဲျဖတ္သြားရမွာျဖစ္ပါတယ္။ ျပည္သူေတြ ထႂကြတာ သင့္ေတာ္တယ္ လို႔ေတာ့ က်ေနာ္ထင္တယ္။ ဒါေပမယ့္ ျပည္သူေတြကို အစုလိုက္ အၿပံဳလိုက္ အသတ္ခံဖို႔ စေတး ၾကလို႔ က်ေနာ္ ေျပာခ်င္တာမဟုတ္ဘူးေနာ္။ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ပိုင္းေတြကို လုပ္ႀကံသတ္ျဖတ္တာမ်ိဳး ကလည္း လူသတ္သမားေတြကို သတ္တာ သင့္ေတာ္ရဲ႕လားဆိုတဲ့ ေမးခြန္းမ်ိဳးနဲ႔ အရမ္းတူတယ္။ သူတို႔ေတြကို အၾကမ္းမဖက္တဲ့ နည္းလမ္းနဲ႔ ဖမ္းဆီးတာမ်ိဳးဆိုရင္ေတာ့ ျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေခ်ရွိတယ္။ ဒါကို သူတို႔က ေသနတ္ဆြဲပစ္မယ္ဆိုရင္ေတာ့ မိမိကိုယ္ကိုယ္ ခုခံကာကြယ္ပိုင္ခြင့္အေနနဲ႔ သူတို႔ကို ျပန္ပစ္သတ္ရတာ သဘာ၀က်တယ္။ တျခားေရြးစရာလမ္းလည္း မရွိေတာ့ဘူးဆိုရင္ေပါ့ေလ။

Written by Lwin Aung Soe

July 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: