by anonyx » Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:35 pm
I realize this comes almost a year after the fact, but I'll make a mention of it in case this thread comes up in google searches as it did for me.
Mr Foster, with all due regard, despite your clear intention to investigate as thoroughly as possible the situation, it is quite clear that Mr Bleming has issues with telling the truth, whether intentional or not. He may simply believe everything he says, but that doesn't make it true, and the article here shows a much clearer understanding of the facts than does Mr Bleming's book, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the Karen people and their struggle. He sees it as he wants to, not as it is.
Your understanding, despite your best efforts, also seems to fall short. Although you may choose to call it semantics, or argue that you were up late writing the post, anyone with even a medium-level understanding of the ethnic insurgencies, especially the longest-running among them (Karen vs Burma govt), would know better than to call them Karenni. The Karenni are a different ethnic group, sometimes included within the larger classification of Karen. However, even if you choose to include them as Karen (which, many would argue, is incorrect anyways), you cannot use the terms interchangeably. Despite the similarity in spelling, it is equivalent to 'accidentally' referring to United States Americans as Canadians, or Kiwis to Aussies.
I can't judge Mr McCartan as a journalist, as I've never met him, but his story is far more representative of the reality of the situation than Mr Bleming's. I agree that the KNU has big issues, and I do not agree with the way they run their show, but that does not mean that Mr McCartan's article is not factual.
Mr Bleming's claims about involvement in other wars in other countries do sound rather far-fetched, mainly because they seem to be unsubstantiated. When faced with people who doubt his claims, he might do well to provide some hard evidence of what he did, and stick to the facts. His factual errors in his book show that he is either dishonest (deliberately or not) or his publisher changed his words before printing the book.