In 1947, when Burma’s independence leader Aung San was in London to negotiate the end of British colonial rule over his country, Winston Churchill expressed indignation in Parliament at the sight of this “traitor rebel leader … marching up the steps of Buckingham Palace as the plenipotentiary of the Burmese Government.”

Aung San was, he said, a quisling who had aided the fascist Japanese Imperial Army in its invasion of British Burma, much as Norway’s wartime president Vidkun Quisling had facilitated the Nazi occupation of his country. The fact that Aung San later joined the Allies in their efforts to rid Burma of the Japanese did not, apparently, make his earlier collaboration with the enemy any less distasteful to Churchill, who described the later alliance as “not a very agreeable transaction.”

What Churchill failed to recognize, of course, was that Aung San never fought for the Japanese or for the British. The object of his struggle was always and only the liberation of Burma—a struggle that continues to this day.

Now, as in the days of Aung San, Burmese who seek to restore their country’s freedom and dignity must do so largely with the assistance of foreign supporters whose agendas are not always identical to their own. Fortunately, however, in our own time, this support comes chiefly from those with whom we share a set of universal values, based upon our common belief in democracy and human rights, rather than from imperialistic powers intent upon using Burma for their own ends.

That does not mean that our relations with our friends have always been easy, however.

Last week, for instance, The Irrawaddy was obliged to publish an open letter to the Danish Embassy in Bangkok to address several inaccuracies and unfounded accusations about our operations that had appeared in an e-mail sent to a number of other embassies in Thailand a week before our annual donors’ meeting on Oct. 1.

Apart from the factual errors contained in this e-mail, we were disturbed by the fact that it had been circulated without our knowledge, leaving us unable to defend ourselves against these charges until a more sympathetic supporter informed us of its existence. By this time, however, it had already reached pro-regime websites, providing a propaganda windfall to a junta that is already preparing to declare a final victory over the forces of democratic change in Burma after next month’s election.

The Danish Embassy is, of course, perfectly entitled to withdraw its support for our organization when and as it sees fit. However, the manner in which it chose to bring our relationship to an end, after providing a very generous sum of US $200,000 over a period of three years, suggests that there is something more at work here than just misgivings about the way The Irrawaddy is using Danish taxpayers’ money.

At this stage, it would be tempting to simply remain silent on this matter, to avoid incurring any further acrimony from a former donor that has already demonstrated an almost inexplicable ill will toward us. However, it has come to our attention that we are not alone in finding ourselves suddenly condemned for failing to live up to the Danish Embassy’s expectations.

We have thus decided that, in the interests of our community, which continues to face challenges unimaginable in countries that already enjoy the full benefits of democracy, we should speak out against what appears to be an undeclared war to undermine Burmese resistance to military rule.

The first signs of trouble emerged last January, when the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet published a report alleging that two Burmese groups based in Thailand, the National Health and Education Committee (NHEC) and the Forum for Democracy in Burma (FDB), had engaged in illegal activities that disqualified them from receiving further support from Denmark.

The nature of the charges against the two groups betrayed a complete ignorance of the realities facing Burmese organizations operating in countries such as Thailand, where their very presence is often deemed illegal. The groups were even taken to task for setting up telephone numbers inside Burma without first getting the approval of the Burmese authorities—something that would entirely defeat the purpose of establishing contact with inside sources of information.

It should come as no surprise that the Danish newspaper report appeared to be utterly uninformed about the actual situation of Burmese exiles in Thailand: According to the Danish Burma Committee, a nongovernmental organization, it was based upon two audit reports written by a Thai national with little understanding of the status of the groups being audited.