Sao Yodsuek’s perspective on the Shan situation
in a changing world
As Burma’s ethnic-minority armies sign ceasefire agreements with
the military junta one by one, the Shan State Army –SSA has kept
up the struggle for more than half a century. Why do they hold out
when circumstances all around them have changed?
The Salween Post interviews Sao Yodsuek, the 50-year-old
leader of the Shan State Army, who has stood on more than a hundred
battlefields. He has commanded the fighters since Khun Sa retired
in 1996.
Q
: The Shan State Army has been fighting for more than four decades
with no real achievement. What are you still fighting for?
We fight for our nation and our homeland. We will persist until
we reach our goal or we perish.
Q : Since Thailand abandoned its policy of
using Shan State as a buffer state against the combatants, the Shan
people have been in a more difficult situation. Why do you continue
to fight?
We fight for our country, not for the status of being a buffer state
for Thailand. We have our own objectives that are nothing to do
with Thailand and its plans.
The problem between Burma and its ethnic minorities
is no longer between the government and the Shan, Karen or Kachin,
but between the great nations – the United States and China.
Q : Have the Shan pursued
any new strategy now that the problem has shifted to the world stage?
The Shan still have their problem with the junta. Ever since General
Ne Win occupied Shan territory in 1962 there have been complication
problems. If there had been no Shan State, there would be no Burma
today.
The Panglong Agreement was signed by Shan and
Burmese leaders in order to secure independence from Britain. The
problem between the Shan and Burma today requires the United Nations’
help in conflict solution.
Q : The Panglong Agreement is often forgotten
– more attention is paid to the Burmese government. How can people
be reminded about the treaty?
The Panglong Agreement is not forgotten. It is now kept in Britain.
Q : But the agreement has
never been mentioned at the international political level, has it?
I think that the first group who should know about this agreement
is the Shan people. We have to be able to stand up on our own feet.
Our achievement in fighting rests in the support of our people.
Q : How do you respond to
suggestions that the Shan should forget about the Panglong Agreement
and start negotiating a new agreement?
If Thais can’t forget about the fall of their old kingdom more than
200 years ago, how can the Shan forget about the Panglong Agreement
just 50 years ago?
Q : The United Nations and
ASEAN are now widely involved in conflict resolution, and the United
States and China play major roles in this area. How do the Shan
regard such modern approaches?
I think the world’s attention being focused on the Burmese question
has a positive impact on the Shan. We fight every day, but the Burmese
government conceals this from the world, and we’re forgotten. If
foreign countries show genuine interest in our cause, what we have
been fighting for will be exposed.
Q : What is your military
strategy?
We have friends from many ethnic groups – the Kachin, Karen, Karenni,
Chin and Arakan, which, with the Shan, make up the seven states
that have a common objective in fighting. We fight for our nation
and our people. We fight for freedom.
Q : Why have these groups
been unable to coordinate?
It’s like schoolchildren graduating to a higher class in pursuit
of more knowledge. In the past, whether we were well coordinated
or not, we learned lessons about the right and wrong way to do things.
We learned that disunity only caused us more hardships. We believe
that people have now learned this lesson and know what to do.
Q : What causes the disunity?
There are different points of view on the objective, different attitudes
and different approaches. Democracy-minded people have a different
perspective from those who take the communistic approach, for example.
And yet we have seen that communism doesn’t work and democracy doesn’t
fit in yet. We realised that we should agree on the self-reliance
on our own people.
Q : Since General Khin Nyunt
was removed from power, the leadership has tended to be more violent
in its conflict solution. How are the Shan handling this?
For the Shan people there is no difference, because Burma is Burma,
no matter who is promoted or demoted from power. There will be still
fighting between the Shan and Burma.
Q : After 40 years of combat,
is anything changing in your approach or Burma’s approach?
Burma’s strategy doesn’t change but ours has. Burma always relies
on military power to control the country. There might be small changes
within the ranks, such as someone stepping up or down from power,
but the fighting strategy remains the same. There are also power
struggles in their group, as we have seen, and yet no change in
governing style.
Q : Some outsiders see the
junta as becoming more open internationally, while they always picture
the ethnic minorities with guns in their hands.
The junta is always trying to shore up international relations,
but although it has good relations with some foreign countries,
nothing has changed within the government. I believe that the international
community importantly focuses on the people’s fundamental rights.
We may have guns in our hands, but we also coordinate with foreign
countries, even if we don’t have formal diplomatic relations.
We are now more harmonious as a group and more
closely associated, in order to move together toward the same objective.
Although we can’t be united in terms of power, our voice and people
are united and focused on the same objective.
Q : How can you convince
the world that the Shan fight is nothing like that of the terrorist
movement?
We don’t worry about our image because our objective is totally
different from the terrorists, with their religious war. Burma and
the Shan are Buddhist. We don’t fight because of religion – it’s
about national liberation.
If people ask who the bad guy is, we ask them about the massacre
of thousands of students and other people in 1988. Why does no one
ever regard the military government as terrorists?
Q : Burma recently established relations with
India, a good friend of the United States, whereas it used to associate
with China alone. Will this change in strategy affect the Shan army?
It’s a creative strategy that will have a positive impact on us,
because Burma’s foreign associates, especially India, should give
it good advice on various issues, including compromising with the
ethnic minorities.
Q : How do you react to
the suggestion that there would be more chaos in Burma if Aung San
Suu Kyi held the reins of power?
It would be better for the ethnic minorities if Suu Kyi were in
charge because she supports democracy.
Q : Does she have concrete
policy toward the ethnic minorities?
Whether it would be concrete or not is another issue – Suu Kyi has
a democratic ideology. If we can start with that, we could work
toward the other issues. She might rule a democratic regime or a
federal state in which power wasn’t centralised within the Burmese
group alone.
Q : Do you worry that the
Shan will be defeated because of their obsolete weapons?
Patriotism doesn’t rely on the modernity of your weapons. The strategy
and the people’s encouragement are more important in the battle.
Q : What encourages the
Shan to fight on despite being often cruelly beaten by the Burmese
troops?
We have to fight for our homeland when other people want to take
it away. We have to fight if our backs are against the wall. People
have no choice, and are united to protect the country and themselves.
If we know we’ll be killed by the Burmese, we need to pick up our
knives and guns to fight them.
Q : There are many young
Shan working in Thailand, some of whom are enjoying their lives
and never want to return to the difficulties in Shan State. How
would you bring them back, and into the struggle for liberation?
I don’t think they forget. It’s good that they can work in Thailand,
because they have no chance to study in Shan State. They can get
some experience in a more developed country and some educational
opportunities. I think they will have an even more patriotic feeling
as a result.
Q : Do you understand when
they put the need to earn money for their families ahead of the
fight for liberation?
It’s natural to be concerned about your welfare, but not everyone
who goes to Thailand earns money – some Shan people go to Thailand
and die. Joining the Shan Army may only promise day-to-day survival,
but we have a future goal for our nation. It’s better to stay in
your own country than flee to another. I believed that few of the
Shan in Thailand will have forgotten about their homeland.
Q : Where does your army’s
funding come from?
We receive money from taxes on the trade in jewellery, teak, vehicles
and cattle along the border.
Q : Other groups like the
Wa share in this tax revenue as well as the Burmese government.
Does this cause the Shan financial difficulty?
It has nothing to do with the Wa or the Burmese. It depends on the
trading channel. If people trade through our channel they have to
pay tax to us. We don’t control only the border trade, we also control
many big cities in Shan State, which pay taxes to us.
Q : Doesn’t such taxation
cause more difficulty for Shan people?
We only collect taxes from the merchants, though we the army can
collect rice from farmers, provided that they can spare it. We keep
records of who is running a business and who is farming. When we
hear about military conflicts with the villager, we solve the problem.
Thailand taxes everything, but we didn’t.
Q : What do the people who
contribute rice to the army get in return?
Our mission is helping people. Our soldiers are our people’s sons
and nephews.
Q : There is a serious drug
problem in Shan State, and the Shan Army enforces a suppression
policy. How do you stop your troops from trying to benefit by selling
drugs or taxing the trade?
We have our intelligence. If we find out about corruption we impose
severe punishment. There is also America’s DDA unit, which has been
working on opium suppression for a long time, but the drug problem
persists in Shan State.
Q : Why haven’t drugs been
eradicated?
Drugs aren’t a Shan State problem but a global problem. The world
community has paid some attention to the Shan aspect of the problem
but it hasn’t fixed the root cause.
Q : What is the root of
drug problem in Shan State?
It’s the people. The drug problem has been there for centuries.
People didn’t know what to do other than grow opium. We have to
fix this by giving them something else to grow instead of opium.
But the Burmese government doesn’t want to help our people. The
Shan people have to live in difficulty and poverty. They still have
to rely on growing opium.
Q : People worry that the Shan Army could turn
to the drugs trade due to financial pressures, just as Khun Sa used
to do.Many organisations have tackled drug suppression, including
the DDA and the Thai government. Have they been able to solve the
problem?
Many people considered Khun Sa , Losinghan the King of Drugs, but
now there are many kings of drugs. What should we do? We have raised
the issue with the world community many times, asking that they
do more in our country. We welcome and are pleased to provide all
the information to the international community and any organisations
that work on drug suppression.
Thailand, for instance, works hard on drug suppression every day,
but the drugs don’t originate in Thailand – the raw opium comes
from Shan State.
I have a question: Who rules Shan State? Burma does. Thailand wants
to eradicate drugs but Burmese pays no attention, so it’s hard to
be successful. If Thailand wants to solve the drug problem, it needs
to communicate with the Shan. We could separate the political issue
from the drug issue. If Thailand doesn’t want to be involved in
Shan politics, we can work together in drug eradication.
Q : How would you solve
the drug problem?
I’ve always said that the drug problem has to be fixed in four ways.
First, fix the Burmese government. Second, find substitute sources
of income for those who rely on drugs. Third, find a market for
alternative crops. And lastly, educate the people, including about
the law and government.
But the drug problem is caused by market demand, especially in Europe
and America. If the demand stays high, the farmers will keep growing
opium. The income is too tempting, even though we have educated
them about the problem.
Nonetheless, I don’t think the high income is necessarily the key
issue, because you can also get rich from other businesses. If Shan
State were independent and self-governing, we could resolve the
economic problem by enabling people to find other sources of income
instead of opium. Because, even it people can make a profit in the
short term, the consequences are very complicated.
Q : There was a report in the Thai media about a producer of the
drug LSD supplying the money to build Yon City. Is it true?
Actually, the Wa were deceived by Chinese merchants and the Burmese
military. The Burmese military painted the Wa group as the drug
dealers, even as it was taking benefit from them. Burma blamed everything
on the Wa when the world community was criticising the drug problem.
The Chinese merchants also greatly benefited from the Wa because
they needed many chemical components and modern knowledge in LSD
production. As to the money to build Yon City, it doesn’t matter
that it came from drugs. There are many other businesses. My personal
opinion is that the Wa are a very honest group, but they have been
deceived and used by Burma.
Q : Both the junta and the
Shan Army are using the drug issue to secure international aid,
so how sincere are you about tackling the drug problem?
Drugs are destroying the Shan people. The reason that we want to
eradicate drugs is not because of politics. It’s because of our
concern for the next generation. If the world wants to know how
sincere we are, they should see our people and see how they suffer.
We don’t use the issue as part of some political game, like Burma
does. Burma tricked the ethnic minorities into getting involved
with drugs so it could blame them, telling the world that they’re
rebellious and don’t love the country.
Q : How do you define the
“achievement of national liberation”? Does it mean splitting up
the country?
Our army has three main missions – kick the Burmese Army off Shan
land, make our people understand and mobilise them to fight, and
set up a Shan government once Burma leaves. If we could accomplish
these three things, our mission would be complete.
Q : How far have you got?
We’ve made it about halfway there. I can’t say why, but I
think we’ve achieved about 50 per cent of our overall plan.
Q : And do you want to separate
Shan State from the union?
It means establishing a Shan nation.
Q : Would you settle for the right of self-government,
without a country of your own ?
The Shan nation should belong to the Shan people,
not others. The country’s name could never be changed.
Translated from theinterview in Salween Post Magazine
Vol. 20 (January 1 – February 15, 2005) |
