The article that appeared on www.shanland.org news titled ‘Chinese agents defeated Khun Sa: former aide’ on 16th April 2006 was an extremely interesting account. This article reviews some aspects of this report.

"He was not annoyed by my accusations," he recalled. "Instead he calmly told me he was only doing what was in the interests of China."

that Beijing would not tolerate separatist tendencies among its neighbours especially Burma.

China’s government has always described itself as accepting the norms of "non-intervention" and they are one who possess a veto power of UNSC. That means they are considered one of the great gentlemen who are leading the human world. And the conditions of the human world have had to follow after such kind of great gentlemen.

So, if these gentlemen go beyond their obligations and become more self-interested than in international problems, the fate of the future of the world would have an unfavourable outcome. To do so, it also means committing international corruption and abusing human right by wholesale means, whilst many people could only point to re-tell of abuse of human rights by SPDC. If China truly accepted norms of "non intervention", they should not have intervened in any case in other’s affairs blindly. If they are kindly interested to help and solve the existing problem, they can serve as gentleman judge and tend to neither side but to decide the right answer in open field clearly as a gentleman really intent on terminating the problem.

In Burma, separation of Shan State or union is not the ultimate answer for the thousand problems currently existing in Burma. If they would not tolerate separatist tendencies among its neighbours, especially Burma, so they should teach Burmese regime how to maintain the true union by meaningful means or mental telepathy. If Shan State people could live in union of Burma peacefully, happily, prosperously and enjoy equal fundamental human rights, even if the Burmese regime drive them out from the union, they surely will kneel down and appeal to Burmese regime to let them stay longer in the union. All humankind are seeking peace, happiness and prosperities and human rights, it is our human birth-right. We have the right to choose the way to seek it freely if they harm nobody. If this way is impossible they will try another way until they achieve the right thing. 

The MTA came into being in 1985 when three groups: Shan United Revolutionary Army (SURA), Shan State Army 'South' (SSA S) and Shanland United Army (SUR) merged together. In 1994 it reportedly fielded 25,000 men. After its surrender in 1996, the SURA, renamed SSA 'South', has been continuing with the fight under the leadership of Col Yawdserk.

The poor unfortunate Shan Revolutionary Armies that form in (21st May 1958) by their right to free their homeland from illegal Burmese dictatorship regime when Ne Win took power for first time to abuse the constitutional right of Shan State people. SSA was influenced by druglord Hkun Sa in 1985 and formed MTA and have been misappropriated by drug business men. In 1990 MTA became blacklisted by the USA and world community. So, the intolerable condition the Shan face in the world, true patriots in MTA, led by Gunyawd (in June 1995) rose up and mutinied from the MTA, leaving the druglord with no choice but to surrender. He chose to surrender to the Burmese regime because he learned he can not misappropriate the SSA to back up the drug business anymore. After MTA surrender, drug business and opium cultivation was more abundant than during the MTA reign in Shan State. Why is that? Because the drug dealers more or less can still misappropriate an armed group in Burma one after one for their own profits. They like confusion to do their illegal business.

The events of splintering the MTA, mutiny of Gunyawd in 1995, and after MTA surrender in 1996, they left behind SURA, renamed SSA 'South', which has been continuing with the fight under the leadership of Col Yawdserk was a distinct classification between true Shan patriots and drug dealers, misappropriaters. As long as Shan State is being settled by multiple armed groups the drug or opium will never vanish in Burma because drug dealers always can use these armed groups as fulcrum because of their impoverished condition and haziness in politics. The more powerful the armed group, the more they are relying and dealing with them. 

Tendencies for ‘soft’ intervention and non intervention are not the right answer to solve the problem of Burma but by accepting the reality and right resolution. Whoever is really anti-drug should accept the reality of the problem of Burma.