The Irrawaddy spoke recently with Brig-Gen Johnny, the commander of the 7th Brigade of the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), the military wing of the Karen National Union (KNU), about the challenges facing the Karen struggle after 60 years of resistance to Burmese rule.
A ceremony to mark the 60th anniversary of Karen Revolution Day was held at the base camp of KNLA Brigade 7 in Karen State on January 31.
Question: What is your resolution for 2009?
Answer: We have to work together with Buddhist monks, students and opposition groups inside and outside Burma to boycott the junta’s election in 2010, because if the Burmese regime wins the election, we will remain under the military’s boot for a long time. So all ethnic groups, monks and students should be united and fight to overthrow the Burmese regime.
Q: How do you plan to achieve this goal? By military means?
A: Political conflicts must be solved by political means. So, [the KNU] has always kept the door open for talks with the Burmese regime. But so far, the regime has ignored this approach. So we must continue to bear arms and fight against them.
We are not holding weapons to fight against Burmans, but to fight against the rule of the dictatorship and against Burman chauvinism. That is why we believe we have to work together with Burmese opposition forces.
We will continue to fight back militarily in any way that we can. If the Burmese army attacks us, we will fight back.
Q: What are your views on the divisions within the KNU?
A: Our weakness is that we don’t understand each other. We don’t have unity. And due to the long period of the resistance and manipulation by the Burmese regime, many of our comrades have split and surrendered to the Burmese regime.
Our enemy tries to divide us everyday. We know that, but we still allow ourselves to be divided. For example, Htein Maung [leader of the breakaway KNU/KNLA Peace Council], knew that the enemy wanted to divide us, but still, he played along. It’s not that our enemy is clever; it’s because we are not clever that this is what happens.
But in the end, the KNU will write its own history.
Q: How do you think that unity within the KNU can be restored?
A: First of all, we must always be careful, because our enemy is constantly trying to divide us. We don’t need to listen to them. We have our own policy. If we follow our policy, we will definitely reach our goal.
Our leaders, like [slain former KNU Secretary General] Padoh Mahn Sha, have done a lot for their people. We who are alive have to carry on with our unfinished duty. If we don’t, we will betray our leaders and our comrades who have sacrificed their lives for the Karen people.
Q: In your opinion, what do the Karen people need most to reach their goal?
A: We have to be united. We have to understand and respect each other. And we must not listen to our enemy. If we work together with love, we will definitely reach our goal.
Q: What do you think about diplomatic efforts to achieve change in Burma?
A: The international pressure is right. But we also have to do our duty. We are the key to freedom in Burma. We can’t rely on the international community alone.
It is the duty of all the repressed people of Burma to become involved in the democracy movement. If we all realize that it is our responsibility to take part in the democracy movement, the goal of our struggle will not be far away.
Showing posts with label Interview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interview. Show all posts
February 2, 2009
January 23, 2009
No Great Expectations
Ludu Sein Win, a veteran Burmese journalist and lifelong observer of the world political scene, spoke to The Irrawaddy recently about his views on US President Barack Obama. The former political prisoner, who has been a critic of Burma’s authoritarian rulers since the socialist era of late dictator Ne Win, cautioned against expecting too much from Obama, and reiterated his long-held view that Burmese shouldn’t rely on foreign leaders to break their country’s political deadlock.
Question: As a Burmese journalist, what do you think of US President Barack Obama?
Answer: I’m a journalist who has long been standing and writing on the side of the underdog. Particularly, I have firmly supported the long struggle of black Americans. I have even published a book entitled “White and Black.” I always stand on the side of the downtrodden.
Generally, I support Obama. He is intelligent. It is only due to his great qualities that he, an ordinary person, was elected to the highest position in a country where white people are dominant. I congratulate and respect him.
But US policies are formulated neither by American presidents nor by the brightest Americans. They are formulated by bankers, financial brokers from Wall Street, weapons merchants and oil mega-corporations.
I don’t think Obama can do much to change American policies, no matter how smart he is. Henry Kissinger was also very intelligent. Condoleeza Rice is a smart woman, as well. But their skills faded away under the influence of the profit-oriented mega-corporations.
I don’t expect much [from Obama]. There may be some minor changes, but I don’t think there will be any major changes in US policies.
Obama said that he would send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan is a land of revolutionary warriors who are so skilful in fighting that they were able to successfully defeat the English imperialists, as well as the former Soviet Union. I just want to warn Obama that if the Americans increase their troops in Afghanistan, they, like the Russians, will be defeated eventually.
Q: On the Burma issue, do you expect anything from Obama?
A: I don’t expect much from him. George W Bush and his wife were good at paying lip service [to the pro-democracy movement in Burma] throughout his presidency, but they didn’t do anything in practice, nor did they wish to.
Due to the big interest and influence of the international oil corporations such as Total and Premier, Obama can also do no more than pay lip service to Burma during his presidency.
I have often said before that we can’t rely on other people. We must do it by ourselves if we want [democracy]. Now, I want to say it again: Don’t rely on either Obama or [UN Secretary-General] Ban Ki-moon.
Q: Does this mean that the US sanctions on Burma are useless or ineffective?
A: Yes, they are ineffective. The sanctions may have some minor impact [on the regime]. In history, there has been no example of sanctions toppling a government, but it is partially useful in some aspects. I don’t say they are useless. But the Burmese people shouldn’t rely on this option. We need to use other alternatives and all available means.
Q: What way would you suggest?
A: I often said that we can’t rest on the UN, the US or anybody but our own people. The September Buddhist monk-led demonstrations have already proved that the Burmese people have a lot of political awareness. The Burmese people are neither cowards nor naive. Again, I want to urge you to believe in the strength of the people and to rely on the people.
Q: In the current situation, the Burmese people have no choice but to cast their votes in the 2010 election. What would you like to say on that matter?
A: We have often had such experiences in the past. In 1974, we experienced a constitutional referendum as well as several elections. The oncoming election won’t be different from the one in 1974. The ordinary people are not very interested in the constitution or the election.
Q: What message do you want to give to the Burmese people?
A: As I said before, the people shouldn’t rest on either the UN or Ban Ki-moon. They shouldn’t expect much from the coming election. They should do what they have to do. This is what I want to say.
Question: As a Burmese journalist, what do you think of US President Barack Obama?
Answer: I’m a journalist who has long been standing and writing on the side of the underdog. Particularly, I have firmly supported the long struggle of black Americans. I have even published a book entitled “White and Black.” I always stand on the side of the downtrodden.
Generally, I support Obama. He is intelligent. It is only due to his great qualities that he, an ordinary person, was elected to the highest position in a country where white people are dominant. I congratulate and respect him.
But US policies are formulated neither by American presidents nor by the brightest Americans. They are formulated by bankers, financial brokers from Wall Street, weapons merchants and oil mega-corporations.
I don’t think Obama can do much to change American policies, no matter how smart he is. Henry Kissinger was also very intelligent. Condoleeza Rice is a smart woman, as well. But their skills faded away under the influence of the profit-oriented mega-corporations.
I don’t expect much [from Obama]. There may be some minor changes, but I don’t think there will be any major changes in US policies.
Obama said that he would send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan is a land of revolutionary warriors who are so skilful in fighting that they were able to successfully defeat the English imperialists, as well as the former Soviet Union. I just want to warn Obama that if the Americans increase their troops in Afghanistan, they, like the Russians, will be defeated eventually.
Q: On the Burma issue, do you expect anything from Obama?
A: I don’t expect much from him. George W Bush and his wife were good at paying lip service [to the pro-democracy movement in Burma] throughout his presidency, but they didn’t do anything in practice, nor did they wish to.
Due to the big interest and influence of the international oil corporations such as Total and Premier, Obama can also do no more than pay lip service to Burma during his presidency.
I have often said before that we can’t rely on other people. We must do it by ourselves if we want [democracy]. Now, I want to say it again: Don’t rely on either Obama or [UN Secretary-General] Ban Ki-moon.
Q: Does this mean that the US sanctions on Burma are useless or ineffective?
A: Yes, they are ineffective. The sanctions may have some minor impact [on the regime]. In history, there has been no example of sanctions toppling a government, but it is partially useful in some aspects. I don’t say they are useless. But the Burmese people shouldn’t rely on this option. We need to use other alternatives and all available means.
Q: What way would you suggest?
A: I often said that we can’t rest on the UN, the US or anybody but our own people. The September Buddhist monk-led demonstrations have already proved that the Burmese people have a lot of political awareness. The Burmese people are neither cowards nor naive. Again, I want to urge you to believe in the strength of the people and to rely on the people.
Q: In the current situation, the Burmese people have no choice but to cast their votes in the 2010 election. What would you like to say on that matter?
A: We have often had such experiences in the past. In 1974, we experienced a constitutional referendum as well as several elections. The oncoming election won’t be different from the one in 1974. The ordinary people are not very interested in the constitution or the election.
Q: What message do you want to give to the Burmese people?
A: As I said before, the people shouldn’t rest on either the UN or Ban Ki-moon. They shouldn’t expect much from the coming election. They should do what they have to do. This is what I want to say.
January 20, 2009
A Message to President Obama
The Irrawaddy recently spoke with Aung Din, executive director of the US Campaign for Burma, about the implications of an Obama presidency for future US policy on Burma.
Question: What is your message to President Obama?
Answer: I want President Obama to uphold the existing economic sanctions on the Burmese military regime and lead a strong diplomatic effort to organize the international community to put collective pressure on the regime. Instead of divided responses, what we need importantly from the international community is to speak with one voice to the generals and I believe President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and US Permanent Representative to the UN Dr Susan Rice will be able to make this happen. As the first step, we want President Obama to appoint someone whom we can trust and rely on to be his Special Envoy on Burma, as authorized by the Tom Lantos Block Burma Jade Act of 2008, and get Senate confirmation as soon as possible.
Q: What can you realistically expect the incoming administration to do on Burma? Do you think the policy will be more or less the same as Bush’s? Or will there be more engagement inside Burma, or even dialogue with the regime?
A: President-elect Obama and Secretary of State-designate Clinton have been among the strong supporters of Burma’s democracy movement since their Senate years. I expect they will continue to place significant pressure on the regime for the release of all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and for the realization of a meaningful and time-bound dialogue between the regime and democracy forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I also expect that they will be able to organize the international community to stand together for the people of Burma and speak with one voice to the generals in Burma.
Q: What do you think of the efforts of George Bush and former first lady Laura Bush on Burma?
A: President Bush and the first lady have done their best for the people of Burma. They were both personally involved in Burma and have made Burma a higher US foreign policy priority. Even in the last days of his administration, President Bush and the first lady have put Burma in the international spotlight again and again and set a precedent for the next administration. We owe them a lot. I still believe that they will continue to be with us even they leave office.
Q: What do you think about Michael Green’s appointment as a special envoy on Burma?
A: I respect Dr Mike Green and I really want him to be the US Special Coordinator for Burma. I expect President Obama will continue to nominate him for the job when he takes office on January 20.
Q: We all know Burma won’t be a top priority, as there are many pressing issues ahead—Afghanistan, North Korea, Darfur, Iraq and of course Pakistan. Do you have any concerns that the new administration will not be able to adequately address the Burma issue?
A: It is true that Obama will be occupied with many pressing issues. We will continue to work with the Congress to remind him of the situation of the people of Burma. We still enjoy strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. I believe the Congress will help us to put Burma on Obama’s foreign policy priority sooner or later.
Q: If Burma faces another major event like the Saffron Revolution, do you think the Burmese people will look to the US administration for support?
A: It is usual for any non-violent movement to expect international support in their peaceful struggle against brutal dictators. International support for the people of Burma and international pressure on the Burmese junta will continue to be a major factor to strengthen and empower democratic forces inside Burma. The United States will continue to play a leading role in the international community for both supporting Burmese democrats and pressuring the junta.
Question: What is your message to President Obama?
Answer: I want President Obama to uphold the existing economic sanctions on the Burmese military regime and lead a strong diplomatic effort to organize the international community to put collective pressure on the regime. Instead of divided responses, what we need importantly from the international community is to speak with one voice to the generals and I believe President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and US Permanent Representative to the UN Dr Susan Rice will be able to make this happen. As the first step, we want President Obama to appoint someone whom we can trust and rely on to be his Special Envoy on Burma, as authorized by the Tom Lantos Block Burma Jade Act of 2008, and get Senate confirmation as soon as possible.
Q: What can you realistically expect the incoming administration to do on Burma? Do you think the policy will be more or less the same as Bush’s? Or will there be more engagement inside Burma, or even dialogue with the regime?
A: President-elect Obama and Secretary of State-designate Clinton have been among the strong supporters of Burma’s democracy movement since their Senate years. I expect they will continue to place significant pressure on the regime for the release of all political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and for the realization of a meaningful and time-bound dialogue between the regime and democracy forces led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I also expect that they will be able to organize the international community to stand together for the people of Burma and speak with one voice to the generals in Burma.
Q: What do you think of the efforts of George Bush and former first lady Laura Bush on Burma?
A: President Bush and the first lady have done their best for the people of Burma. They were both personally involved in Burma and have made Burma a higher US foreign policy priority. Even in the last days of his administration, President Bush and the first lady have put Burma in the international spotlight again and again and set a precedent for the next administration. We owe them a lot. I still believe that they will continue to be with us even they leave office.
Q: What do you think about Michael Green’s appointment as a special envoy on Burma?
A: I respect Dr Mike Green and I really want him to be the US Special Coordinator for Burma. I expect President Obama will continue to nominate him for the job when he takes office on January 20.
Q: We all know Burma won’t be a top priority, as there are many pressing issues ahead—Afghanistan, North Korea, Darfur, Iraq and of course Pakistan. Do you have any concerns that the new administration will not be able to adequately address the Burma issue?
A: It is true that Obama will be occupied with many pressing issues. We will continue to work with the Congress to remind him of the situation of the people of Burma. We still enjoy strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. I believe the Congress will help us to put Burma on Obama’s foreign policy priority sooner or later.
Q: If Burma faces another major event like the Saffron Revolution, do you think the Burmese people will look to the US administration for support?
A: It is usual for any non-violent movement to expect international support in their peaceful struggle against brutal dictators. International support for the people of Burma and international pressure on the Burmese junta will continue to be a major factor to strengthen and empower democratic forces inside Burma. The United States will continue to play a leading role in the international community for both supporting Burmese democrats and pressuring the junta.
January 16, 2009
Through the Director’s Lens
The Irrawaddy recently interviewed the famous Burmese film director and producer Kyi Soe Tun, winner in 2005 of the Best Director and Best Script awards for his movie “sa hta gan” (Hexagon), a captivating drama which tells the story of six pregnant women.
Kyi Soe Tun has won five academy awards in the Best Director and Best Screenplay categories. He first burst onto the Burmese movie scene in 1977 and has directed no less than 34 films, including the popular dramas about family relationships, “sone yay” (Downstream) and “san yay” (Upstream), as well as the classical historical drama “thu kyun ma khan pyi” (We will no longer be slaves).
He was previously the chairman of the Myanmar Film Association.
Question: Which movie do you think will win a Burmese academy award this year and who are your predictions for best actor and best actress?
Answer: I would rather talk about what I have seen than what I would predict. For me, there’s “ngar dhar, ngar thway, ngar irrawaddy” (My sword, my blood, my Irrawaddy) directed by Tun Aung Zaw. I also loved the Mandalay-based film “koe sal sa thar late mal” (It will be better nine or ten times), “yin nint aung hmway” (Smells good to the heart) and “ah may hnint tha mee myar” (Mother and daughters).
As for directors, I am inspired by Tun Aung Zaw, Maung Yin Aung and Maung Wunna. For actors: Lwin Moe, Lu Minn, Kyaw Ye Aung and Yan Aung. And in the actresses’ category: Myo Thandar Tun, Soe Myat Thu Zar and Khine Thin Kyi.
Q: What are the criteria for selecting academy award winners?
A: The Ministry of Information selects a committee made up of experts in fields such as music, photography and sound. The committee then shortlists the best movies.
Q: I heard there were only ten films shortlisted for awards this year. Why so few?
A: In fact, there are fewer people watching Burmese films, so as a result, fewer movies are being made. When I started in the film industry, there were about 80 films a year being produced in Burma, none of which were made into TV series. Back then, there were no pop and rock concerts either. People just watched films and zat (traditional theater). People now have more choice. They can watch foreign DVDs very cheaply. If they go to the cinema they have to pay bus fares and entry fees. For a family, it costs at least 10,000 kyat (US $8). As in other countries, the audiences have changed.
Q: So, some films don’t make profits?
A: Some films cannot retrieve what they have invested. But they often get it back gradually. “Yin nint aung hmway,” for example, lost in terms of profit. In the film marketplace, audiences like comedies. They’re not so fond of dramas. In Burma, there are about 800 VCDs produced every year, mostly karaoke recordings.
Q: Is there likely to be an increase in the number of films in 2009?
A: I think there will be more films this year. But I mean in terms of quantity, not quality.
Q: So you’re not satisfied with the quality of Burmese movies?
A: No. We lag behind countries like Thailand in technical production. I have had to send some of my movies outside Burma to improve the sound effects. I couldn't do it here. We don't have modern equipment and that detracts from the quality of the film, not only in resolution but in sound quality. We are lagging behind our neighbors.
Q: What are main difficulties in getting Burmese films into the international market?
A: It’s still impossible for us to reach an international audience. In fact, film-making is about national pride. If you look at Korean films, they are promoted as national phenomena. If we don’t regard our films as reflections of our national pride, they will never improve.
Q: Do you have a message for Burma’s rising film industry?
A: I would encourage them not to stay in their own enclosed spaces. Get out of the box and do something more than just making a living. It’s your duty to work for the public.
Q: Any message for movie-goers?
A: As a well-known German poet once said: “Only when the artists improve, will the audience improve. And when the audience improves, the artists will improve.” If we don’t improve, or succeed, we will be forever trapped with tame comedies.
Kyi Soe Tun has won five academy awards in the Best Director and Best Screenplay categories. He first burst onto the Burmese movie scene in 1977 and has directed no less than 34 films, including the popular dramas about family relationships, “sone yay” (Downstream) and “san yay” (Upstream), as well as the classical historical drama “thu kyun ma khan pyi” (We will no longer be slaves).
He was previously the chairman of the Myanmar Film Association.
Question: Which movie do you think will win a Burmese academy award this year and who are your predictions for best actor and best actress?
Answer: I would rather talk about what I have seen than what I would predict. For me, there’s “ngar dhar, ngar thway, ngar irrawaddy” (My sword, my blood, my Irrawaddy) directed by Tun Aung Zaw. I also loved the Mandalay-based film “koe sal sa thar late mal” (It will be better nine or ten times), “yin nint aung hmway” (Smells good to the heart) and “ah may hnint tha mee myar” (Mother and daughters).
As for directors, I am inspired by Tun Aung Zaw, Maung Yin Aung and Maung Wunna. For actors: Lwin Moe, Lu Minn, Kyaw Ye Aung and Yan Aung. And in the actresses’ category: Myo Thandar Tun, Soe Myat Thu Zar and Khine Thin Kyi.
Q: What are the criteria for selecting academy award winners?
A: The Ministry of Information selects a committee made up of experts in fields such as music, photography and sound. The committee then shortlists the best movies.
Q: I heard there were only ten films shortlisted for awards this year. Why so few?
A: In fact, there are fewer people watching Burmese films, so as a result, fewer movies are being made. When I started in the film industry, there were about 80 films a year being produced in Burma, none of which were made into TV series. Back then, there were no pop and rock concerts either. People just watched films and zat (traditional theater). People now have more choice. They can watch foreign DVDs very cheaply. If they go to the cinema they have to pay bus fares and entry fees. For a family, it costs at least 10,000 kyat (US $8). As in other countries, the audiences have changed.
Q: So, some films don’t make profits?
A: Some films cannot retrieve what they have invested. But they often get it back gradually. “Yin nint aung hmway,” for example, lost in terms of profit. In the film marketplace, audiences like comedies. They’re not so fond of dramas. In Burma, there are about 800 VCDs produced every year, mostly karaoke recordings.
Q: Is there likely to be an increase in the number of films in 2009?
A: I think there will be more films this year. But I mean in terms of quantity, not quality.
Q: So you’re not satisfied with the quality of Burmese movies?
A: No. We lag behind countries like Thailand in technical production. I have had to send some of my movies outside Burma to improve the sound effects. I couldn't do it here. We don't have modern equipment and that detracts from the quality of the film, not only in resolution but in sound quality. We are lagging behind our neighbors.
Q: What are main difficulties in getting Burmese films into the international market?
A: It’s still impossible for us to reach an international audience. In fact, film-making is about national pride. If you look at Korean films, they are promoted as national phenomena. If we don’t regard our films as reflections of our national pride, they will never improve.
Q: Do you have a message for Burma’s rising film industry?
A: I would encourage them not to stay in their own enclosed spaces. Get out of the box and do something more than just making a living. It’s your duty to work for the public.
Q: Any message for movie-goers?
A: As a well-known German poet once said: “Only when the artists improve, will the audience improve. And when the audience improves, the artists will improve.” If we don’t improve, or succeed, we will be forever trapped with tame comedies.
January 14, 2009
Mark My Words
British ambassador to Burma, Mark Canning, talks to The Irrawaddy about the role of the UN and Asean in Burma, the Cyclone Nargis relief effort and his expectations for the election in 2010
Question: How do you assess events in Burma in 2008?
Answer: It was a bad year on almost all fronts. It was especially cruel that on top of all their other problems, the people of this country had to cope with the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis—but at least there we’ve seen some good progress. After a difficult start, relief reached those who needed it, a creative mechanism was established for overseeing the operation and a number of tricky problems were overcome.
Elsewhere, there was no movement, in fact quite the opposite. The UN secretary-general himself said very recently that the degree of cooperation between Myanmar and the UN had been unsatisfactory. There was no move towards any sort of dialogue between the government and the opposition. There was continued repression.
The number of political prisoners doubled, and more than 200 activists, who’ve done nothing but espouse peaceful protests, were given massive prison sentences. Aung San Suu Kyi remains locked away and prevented from playing the conciliatory role she could fulfil if allowed. The various concessions made at the turn of the year, like the series of meetings between her and the labour minister came to nothing. The population has been told to expect the introduction of “disciplined democracy” in 2010—they’ve seen plenty of the former but not much of the latter.
Q: Many critics, including Burmese both inside and outside the country, believe that Gambari’s mission has been a failure. What can he do to win greater credibility for his mission and to achieve political reconciliation in Burma?
A: The UN is playing a key role and we support it 100 percent. Dr Gambari has been working the problem extremely hard, but, as he and the secretary-general have made clear, the level of cooperation from the government has simply not been good enough.
There’s always been a tendency to criticise the envoy—you saw the same with Razali Ismail, you see it now with Dr Gambari, but that’s a mistake. It’s quite clear where responsibility lies for the lack of forward movement. The priority for 2009 therefore is to rebuild more solid international backing for what the UN is trying to do. The secretary-general’s personal engagement is a great asset and should help achieve that, and we hope very much to see him back here once conditions allow. We have now a clear assessment of where things have got to on which to build. It’s crystal clear there’s not been the kind of progress over the past 12 months which a number of countries claim to have seen. In fact, the situation has gone backwards and will continue to do so until there is clear and unambiguous backing for the UN. Issues like the release of political prisoners, rather than being internal matters, are central to what the UN is trying to achieve—political reconciliation.
Q: The UK played a major role in the cyclone relief operation—where do you see things going now?
A: The operation is going far better than we feared at the outset. The Tripartite Core Group mechanism has proved a great success, and there has been excellent collaboration between the government, Asean and the UN. Most of the affected population is getting some form of support, a wave of secondary deaths has been avoided, and the operation has been instrumental in saving hundreds of thousands of lives. As you say, the UK has been the largest contributor, and we’re proud of that. Most of all though it’s been a fantastic co-operative effort which has involved a range of donors, agencies, and local and international NGOs, all of which has rested on the hard and innovative work of the three TCG partners.
Our ministers are now in the process of assessing what more we might do. Looking ahead, we—and I think most donors—hope to see the TCG mandate extended beyond July so that it can build on what’s been achieved. We hope also that in partnership with government, some of the underlying policy issues in the area of agriculture and livelihoods, that affect the ability of those in the delta and elsewhere to make a sustainable living, can be considered. There’s good work going on there too, but there’s probably more that could be done. The key point is that there’s no point bandaging the patient if you then send him back into the environment that helped cause the problem in the first place.
Q: Do you think that the “humanitarian space” in the delta can be expanded to other areas of the country? What makes you believe that this will be possible, and what obstacles do you foresee?
A: That’s certainly the hope of all of us who are involved in the operation. The Nargis operation has helped build confidence and trust between the government and the donor community. We’ve seen good co-operative working, and both local and international NGOs play a fantastic role. All this has been excellent, but, as you say, the rest of the country is out there and it’s important in coming months that collectively we start to raise our eyes from the delta to address some of the serious situations elsewhere. Whether we’ll succeed, and the environment will almost certainly be difficult and unpredictable in the period up to 2010, remains to be seen, but it’s essential we try to build on the gains and keep up the momentum.
Q: The UK has tended to take a hard political line on Burma. Why in this case were you willing to donate so generously? And how would you respond to sceptics who say that aid organisations cannot operate effectively in Burma because of government restrictions? You recently asked the Burmese military government to increase its assistance to the Burmese people. Do you think that they have increased their aid to people who are in need?
A: We’ve always believed that, while the search for a political solution goes on, the people of this country should not be made to suffer further. We’ve steadily extended our humanitarian work in-country, particularly in health, but in other areas too, like livelihoods and primary education. Our role in the relief operation was consistent with this, and we hope that the success it’s enjoyed will encourage other donors to work in this country, which remains one of the most under-aided in the world.
To the sceptics you mention, I’d say that while this is not always the easiest of environments, good work can and is being done. The Three Diseases Fund is a good example. It’s delivering real health benefits to vulnerable populations, has benefited from excellent cooperation from the Ministry of Health and has at all times operated within the guidelines donors set at the outset. We very much hope to see more donors come in and are more than happy to share our experience with them. We hope to see the government’s contribution increase—that not only makes more funds available for the delivery of health, education, etc, but it also sends a signal of commitment that helps draw in new donors and encourages those already here to provide more assistance.
Q: Turning back to politics, what about Burma’s neighbours? Apart from the members of Asean, what do you think other countries, such as India, China and Russia, can do to bring about positive change in Burma?
A: There’s a key role for the countries of the region. Everyone understands the intractable nature of this problem. There are no easy solutions, and it must be tempting at times, when the issue is on your doorstep, to give up on it. Regional integration is hard enough at the best of times, yet alone when one of the members is moving in the opposite direction in political and economic terms. For the members of Asean, the situation poses an obvious reputational challenge—at the very time they are launching the human rights charter, we have a member flouting the standards it is designed to promote and as the situation declines—and it will—the practical effects on the neighbours, are likely to become more pronounced.
The fundamental question for the region therefore is whether the course on which the government is embarked is going to deliver the sort of stability and prosperity they have achieved in their own countries? There’s very little evidence in my view that it is. Nobody is under any illusions about the scale of the challenge, and a number of countries in the region have been working to address it, but the key in coming months is to build a more unified backing for what the UN is trying to achieve. It’s essential that the government should constantly be reminded, by those that have influence, of the need for change and meaningful cooperation with the UN.
Q: There has been a great deal of speculation that Aung San Suu Kyi could be released this year. If so, what do you think she will be able to achieve?
A: Whether she’ll be freed we obviously don’t know, but she should be. She has made clear repeatedly her willingness to work with the government and other political and ethnic nationality forces to address the challenges this country faces. She has made clear her wish to work for gradual, stable, evolutionary change, and change which takes account of the interests of the many different parties involved, including the military.
The fact that she’s under house arrest suggests she’s regarded as a threat. But she’s actually an opportunity in the sense that she could be instrumental in helping to forge the sort of broad-based dialogue with government that is the only way that progress is going to be made. If she’s not allowed to play that role, then it’s difficult to see how this will be done.
Q: The regime has accused the British and other Western embassies of meeting with NLD members. How do you respond to this charge?
A: We keep in touch with as wide a range of opinion as we are able. That includes government, as well as a range of other actors, and that’s very much the role of an embassy.
Q: How do you see Burma’s political landscape in 2010 and beyond? What is the UK government’s stance on the 2010 election?
A: The coming year will obviously be dominated by preparations for the elections in 2010, and we’ll presumably soon get some more detail of what the SPDC will allow in terms of participation. This can all represent a healing process, and a step on the way to resolving longstanding political difficulties—or it can be the opposite—as has been the case till now.
There’s clearly time to make the process more inclusive. We hope to see that happen. The European Union has always made clear that it is willing to respond to movement in a positive direction. Clearly, you can not have a credible electoral process without certain things happening—the release of political prisoners, engagement between government, opposition and the ethnic nationalities—and those are the criteria against which it should be judged.
Question: How do you assess events in Burma in 2008?
Answer: It was a bad year on almost all fronts. It was especially cruel that on top of all their other problems, the people of this country had to cope with the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis—but at least there we’ve seen some good progress. After a difficult start, relief reached those who needed it, a creative mechanism was established for overseeing the operation and a number of tricky problems were overcome.
Elsewhere, there was no movement, in fact quite the opposite. The UN secretary-general himself said very recently that the degree of cooperation between Myanmar and the UN had been unsatisfactory. There was no move towards any sort of dialogue between the government and the opposition. There was continued repression.
The number of political prisoners doubled, and more than 200 activists, who’ve done nothing but espouse peaceful protests, were given massive prison sentences. Aung San Suu Kyi remains locked away and prevented from playing the conciliatory role she could fulfil if allowed. The various concessions made at the turn of the year, like the series of meetings between her and the labour minister came to nothing. The population has been told to expect the introduction of “disciplined democracy” in 2010—they’ve seen plenty of the former but not much of the latter.
Q: Many critics, including Burmese both inside and outside the country, believe that Gambari’s mission has been a failure. What can he do to win greater credibility for his mission and to achieve political reconciliation in Burma?
A: The UN is playing a key role and we support it 100 percent. Dr Gambari has been working the problem extremely hard, but, as he and the secretary-general have made clear, the level of cooperation from the government has simply not been good enough.
There’s always been a tendency to criticise the envoy—you saw the same with Razali Ismail, you see it now with Dr Gambari, but that’s a mistake. It’s quite clear where responsibility lies for the lack of forward movement. The priority for 2009 therefore is to rebuild more solid international backing for what the UN is trying to do. The secretary-general’s personal engagement is a great asset and should help achieve that, and we hope very much to see him back here once conditions allow. We have now a clear assessment of where things have got to on which to build. It’s crystal clear there’s not been the kind of progress over the past 12 months which a number of countries claim to have seen. In fact, the situation has gone backwards and will continue to do so until there is clear and unambiguous backing for the UN. Issues like the release of political prisoners, rather than being internal matters, are central to what the UN is trying to achieve—political reconciliation.
Q: The UK played a major role in the cyclone relief operation—where do you see things going now?
A: The operation is going far better than we feared at the outset. The Tripartite Core Group mechanism has proved a great success, and there has been excellent collaboration between the government, Asean and the UN. Most of the affected population is getting some form of support, a wave of secondary deaths has been avoided, and the operation has been instrumental in saving hundreds of thousands of lives. As you say, the UK has been the largest contributor, and we’re proud of that. Most of all though it’s been a fantastic co-operative effort which has involved a range of donors, agencies, and local and international NGOs, all of which has rested on the hard and innovative work of the three TCG partners.
Our ministers are now in the process of assessing what more we might do. Looking ahead, we—and I think most donors—hope to see the TCG mandate extended beyond July so that it can build on what’s been achieved. We hope also that in partnership with government, some of the underlying policy issues in the area of agriculture and livelihoods, that affect the ability of those in the delta and elsewhere to make a sustainable living, can be considered. There’s good work going on there too, but there’s probably more that could be done. The key point is that there’s no point bandaging the patient if you then send him back into the environment that helped cause the problem in the first place.
Q: Do you think that the “humanitarian space” in the delta can be expanded to other areas of the country? What makes you believe that this will be possible, and what obstacles do you foresee?
A: That’s certainly the hope of all of us who are involved in the operation. The Nargis operation has helped build confidence and trust between the government and the donor community. We’ve seen good co-operative working, and both local and international NGOs play a fantastic role. All this has been excellent, but, as you say, the rest of the country is out there and it’s important in coming months that collectively we start to raise our eyes from the delta to address some of the serious situations elsewhere. Whether we’ll succeed, and the environment will almost certainly be difficult and unpredictable in the period up to 2010, remains to be seen, but it’s essential we try to build on the gains and keep up the momentum.
Q: The UK has tended to take a hard political line on Burma. Why in this case were you willing to donate so generously? And how would you respond to sceptics who say that aid organisations cannot operate effectively in Burma because of government restrictions? You recently asked the Burmese military government to increase its assistance to the Burmese people. Do you think that they have increased their aid to people who are in need?
A: We’ve always believed that, while the search for a political solution goes on, the people of this country should not be made to suffer further. We’ve steadily extended our humanitarian work in-country, particularly in health, but in other areas too, like livelihoods and primary education. Our role in the relief operation was consistent with this, and we hope that the success it’s enjoyed will encourage other donors to work in this country, which remains one of the most under-aided in the world.
To the sceptics you mention, I’d say that while this is not always the easiest of environments, good work can and is being done. The Three Diseases Fund is a good example. It’s delivering real health benefits to vulnerable populations, has benefited from excellent cooperation from the Ministry of Health and has at all times operated within the guidelines donors set at the outset. We very much hope to see more donors come in and are more than happy to share our experience with them. We hope to see the government’s contribution increase—that not only makes more funds available for the delivery of health, education, etc, but it also sends a signal of commitment that helps draw in new donors and encourages those already here to provide more assistance.
Q: Turning back to politics, what about Burma’s neighbours? Apart from the members of Asean, what do you think other countries, such as India, China and Russia, can do to bring about positive change in Burma?
A: There’s a key role for the countries of the region. Everyone understands the intractable nature of this problem. There are no easy solutions, and it must be tempting at times, when the issue is on your doorstep, to give up on it. Regional integration is hard enough at the best of times, yet alone when one of the members is moving in the opposite direction in political and economic terms. For the members of Asean, the situation poses an obvious reputational challenge—at the very time they are launching the human rights charter, we have a member flouting the standards it is designed to promote and as the situation declines—and it will—the practical effects on the neighbours, are likely to become more pronounced.
The fundamental question for the region therefore is whether the course on which the government is embarked is going to deliver the sort of stability and prosperity they have achieved in their own countries? There’s very little evidence in my view that it is. Nobody is under any illusions about the scale of the challenge, and a number of countries in the region have been working to address it, but the key in coming months is to build a more unified backing for what the UN is trying to achieve. It’s essential that the government should constantly be reminded, by those that have influence, of the need for change and meaningful cooperation with the UN.
Q: There has been a great deal of speculation that Aung San Suu Kyi could be released this year. If so, what do you think she will be able to achieve?
A: Whether she’ll be freed we obviously don’t know, but she should be. She has made clear repeatedly her willingness to work with the government and other political and ethnic nationality forces to address the challenges this country faces. She has made clear her wish to work for gradual, stable, evolutionary change, and change which takes account of the interests of the many different parties involved, including the military.
The fact that she’s under house arrest suggests she’s regarded as a threat. But she’s actually an opportunity in the sense that she could be instrumental in helping to forge the sort of broad-based dialogue with government that is the only way that progress is going to be made. If she’s not allowed to play that role, then it’s difficult to see how this will be done.
Q: The regime has accused the British and other Western embassies of meeting with NLD members. How do you respond to this charge?
A: We keep in touch with as wide a range of opinion as we are able. That includes government, as well as a range of other actors, and that’s very much the role of an embassy.
Q: How do you see Burma’s political landscape in 2010 and beyond? What is the UK government’s stance on the 2010 election?
A: The coming year will obviously be dominated by preparations for the elections in 2010, and we’ll presumably soon get some more detail of what the SPDC will allow in terms of participation. This can all represent a healing process, and a step on the way to resolving longstanding political difficulties—or it can be the opposite—as has been the case till now.
There’s clearly time to make the process more inclusive. We hope to see that happen. The European Union has always made clear that it is willing to respond to movement in a positive direction. Clearly, you can not have a credible electoral process without certain things happening—the release of political prisoners, engagement between government, opposition and the ethnic nationalities—and those are the criteria against which it should be judged.
January 12, 2009
Messenger in the Dark
By THE IRRAWADDY
Fear follows Burmese artists even when they venture abroad, according to the leading painter Chaw Ei Thein.
The self-censorship they practice within Burma persists even when artists work and exhibit outside the country, she told The Irrawaddy in an interview.
“We always take into account that we have to return home,” Chaw Ei Thein said.
The pioneering artist—one of the organizers of Burma’s first collection of work by mentally handicapped people, in 2000—has participated in international exhibitions. She mounted her third solo exhibition last month, at the Balance Art Gallery in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand, with the title “In This Dark and Closed Space.”
A reporter for The Irrawaddy visited the exhibition and interviewed Chaw Ei Thein.
Question: Almost every painting in this exhibition looks pessimistic…
Answer: I was wondering when I was working on these paintings if they were more pessimistic than optimistic. I thought that what I offered as art or what I wanted to say to my audiences could make them depressed or disappointed. But I couldn't avoid that. I just wanted to do it. In fact, it was a time when I felt dejected. I knew that I felt dejected. Although I thought there were ways to escape that feeling, I just felt dejected.
Q: Is the reason that you felt dejected related to politics?
A: Of course, nobody can avoid politics. So the situation of my own country impacts everybody, including artists like me.
Q: I saw some installation art here. Tell me about it.
A: If you paint on canvas, you have a frame or limitation. I cannot present something that I want to say. Maybe I am not that skillful. So one day I wondered how I could present without painting. I found a pot at the market and got an idea to create a work of art using domestic utensils. I observed the sunlight shining on the pot. I found a spot of sunlight inside the pot and that gave me an idea to paint. It solved my problem. I got the idea to paint inside the pot. The next day, while I was painting downstairs, I looked at the ground to ease my eyes and saw some small stones. I found some facets on the stones. At that time, in fact, I was painting some faces on the inside surface of the pot. So I picked up a stone, washed it and painted faces on its surface. I liked it very much. As the faces are not symmetric, the expressions of these faces also became automatically different. And then, I washed them and painted on them. That can also be called installation art. It is mixed media.
Q: I noticed that you used some body parts, such as faces, hands or legs in your
paintings or performance. Why?
A: I also asked myself that question. I liked these parts of the body. To confess, the first thing that influences me is that I like tattoos very much. So I paint body parts on faces or hands when I present performance art. The meaning is simple. I am not alone. When my hands stretch out, they are not alone. A lot of people are stretching their hands out. They are not formal anatomy.
Q: How do you assess the freedom of creating art in Burma?
A: To be truthful, there is no freedom to create art inside or outside the country. Some might think that they are free outside [Burma]. As for me, I don't feel free, no matter whether I am inside or outside. That is my problem. When I was outside the country for the first time, I thought that I was free and free to do anything. But fear rode piggyback. So before anybody censored our art, we censored ourselves. We always take into account that we have to return home.
Q: What do you think of the creative arts in Burma as a performance or installation artist?
A: It is surprising that although artists in our country have many kinds of difficulties, like connection, as compared to those in other countries, art— especially paintings—can compete with other countries better than other art, such as literature or film. It does not lag behind. We artists have nobody to support us. We are on our own. But we can overtake other people despite different kinds of difficulties.
Q: You teach children. Why do you choose to teach children painting?
A: Painting provides creative and critical thinking for children. I know its importance through my father (artist Maung Maung Thein) since I was young. And I like teaching. I like painting. So it is part of my hobby and I stick to it.
Q: What is the difference between children in Burma and those abroad? How do their opportunities differ?
A: Opportunities are different, very different. If the system is good, a lot of people under that good system will be better off. If the system is not good, people will have trouble. There is no opportunity inside the country [Burma]. There is a difference in self confidence. There are some art lessons in Burma's schools. But they are just for competition, just for one show. There are some lessons in the curriculum but they are not systematic. The whole system is not updated.
Q: A painting of yours about the September 2007 uprising is close to realism. Why did you include that painting among your expressionist work?
A: Ah! In fact, I was not there when it [the uprising] broke out. I was in China, presenting performance art. I knew something [of the uprising] from the Internet. It hurt my heart and soul. It was an original photo of a monk and soldiers in the foreground. You can see some heads and guns. I want to fill them in in black.
Q: Finally, tell me about this exhibition.
A: The most important thing I would like to say is that I want to let people feel what I am feeling about the present situation. Another thing is that what people know about us is just superficial. They don't know in depth. So, as an artist, I feel myself as 'messenger.' People just know what is going on per se. The military government is ruling. Auntie Suu [Aung San Suu Kyi] got the Nobel Peace Prize. That's all they know. They don't know our daily problems or difficulties. They know only two names. But they don't know Burma. So what I do is talking rather than painting. Such as how we eat, how we live, how the electricity is or how our education is in my country. I want to say that I am working as a messenger with my art.
Fear follows Burmese artists even when they venture abroad, according to the leading painter Chaw Ei Thein.
The self-censorship they practice within Burma persists even when artists work and exhibit outside the country, she told The Irrawaddy in an interview.
“We always take into account that we have to return home,” Chaw Ei Thein said.
The pioneering artist—one of the organizers of Burma’s first collection of work by mentally handicapped people, in 2000—has participated in international exhibitions. She mounted her third solo exhibition last month, at the Balance Art Gallery in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand, with the title “In This Dark and Closed Space.”
A reporter for The Irrawaddy visited the exhibition and interviewed Chaw Ei Thein.
Question: Almost every painting in this exhibition looks pessimistic…
Answer: I was wondering when I was working on these paintings if they were more pessimistic than optimistic. I thought that what I offered as art or what I wanted to say to my audiences could make them depressed or disappointed. But I couldn't avoid that. I just wanted to do it. In fact, it was a time when I felt dejected. I knew that I felt dejected. Although I thought there were ways to escape that feeling, I just felt dejected.
Q: Is the reason that you felt dejected related to politics?
A: Of course, nobody can avoid politics. So the situation of my own country impacts everybody, including artists like me.
Q: I saw some installation art here. Tell me about it.
A: If you paint on canvas, you have a frame or limitation. I cannot present something that I want to say. Maybe I am not that skillful. So one day I wondered how I could present without painting. I found a pot at the market and got an idea to create a work of art using domestic utensils. I observed the sunlight shining on the pot. I found a spot of sunlight inside the pot and that gave me an idea to paint. It solved my problem. I got the idea to paint inside the pot. The next day, while I was painting downstairs, I looked at the ground to ease my eyes and saw some small stones. I found some facets on the stones. At that time, in fact, I was painting some faces on the inside surface of the pot. So I picked up a stone, washed it and painted faces on its surface. I liked it very much. As the faces are not symmetric, the expressions of these faces also became automatically different. And then, I washed them and painted on them. That can also be called installation art. It is mixed media.
Q: I noticed that you used some body parts, such as faces, hands or legs in your
paintings or performance. Why?
A: I also asked myself that question. I liked these parts of the body. To confess, the first thing that influences me is that I like tattoos very much. So I paint body parts on faces or hands when I present performance art. The meaning is simple. I am not alone. When my hands stretch out, they are not alone. A lot of people are stretching their hands out. They are not formal anatomy.
Q: How do you assess the freedom of creating art in Burma?
A: To be truthful, there is no freedom to create art inside or outside the country. Some might think that they are free outside [Burma]. As for me, I don't feel free, no matter whether I am inside or outside. That is my problem. When I was outside the country for the first time, I thought that I was free and free to do anything. But fear rode piggyback. So before anybody censored our art, we censored ourselves. We always take into account that we have to return home.
Q: What do you think of the creative arts in Burma as a performance or installation artist?
A: It is surprising that although artists in our country have many kinds of difficulties, like connection, as compared to those in other countries, art— especially paintings—can compete with other countries better than other art, such as literature or film. It does not lag behind. We artists have nobody to support us. We are on our own. But we can overtake other people despite different kinds of difficulties.
Q: You teach children. Why do you choose to teach children painting?
A: Painting provides creative and critical thinking for children. I know its importance through my father (artist Maung Maung Thein) since I was young. And I like teaching. I like painting. So it is part of my hobby and I stick to it.
Q: What is the difference between children in Burma and those abroad? How do their opportunities differ?
A: Opportunities are different, very different. If the system is good, a lot of people under that good system will be better off. If the system is not good, people will have trouble. There is no opportunity inside the country [Burma]. There is a difference in self confidence. There are some art lessons in Burma's schools. But they are just for competition, just for one show. There are some lessons in the curriculum but they are not systematic. The whole system is not updated.
Q: A painting of yours about the September 2007 uprising is close to realism. Why did you include that painting among your expressionist work?
A: Ah! In fact, I was not there when it [the uprising] broke out. I was in China, presenting performance art. I knew something [of the uprising] from the Internet. It hurt my heart and soul. It was an original photo of a monk and soldiers in the foreground. You can see some heads and guns. I want to fill them in in black.
Q: Finally, tell me about this exhibition.
A: The most important thing I would like to say is that I want to let people feel what I am feeling about the present situation. Another thing is that what people know about us is just superficial. They don't know in depth. So, as an artist, I feel myself as 'messenger.' People just know what is going on per se. The military government is ruling. Auntie Suu [Aung San Suu Kyi] got the Nobel Peace Prize. That's all they know. They don't know our daily problems or difficulties. They know only two names. But they don't know Burma. So what I do is talking rather than painting. Such as how we eat, how we live, how the electricity is or how our education is in my country. I want to say that I am working as a messenger with my art.
December 26, 2008
Rangoon Artist Paints the Naked Truth
By THE IRRAWADDYFat is beautiful—so says Rangoon artist Sandar Khaing, and to support that unconventional viewpoint she peoples her canvases with seriously overweight nudes. Sandar Khaing studied under prominent and experienced artists like Pe Nyunt Wai and Win Pe Myint, but now she has struck out on her own very individual path, giving the term “heavyweight” a new and aesthetic meaning.
About 40 of her striking paintings are on show in an exhibition, “The Naked Truth,” at the home in Chiang Mai, Thailand, of art enthusiast Loren Knutson. The Irrawaddy visited the exhibition and interviewed Sandar Khaing…
Question: Tell us how you came to paint nudes.
Answer: I started to paint in 1996 by hiring models. At that time, models were slim. I painted together with my teachers. Then I started to be interested in my elder sister's fatness and asked her to be my model. At first, she refused. Then she agreed. Since then, I have drawn fat people. I have about 60 paintings. Now I can make an exhibition here. All are painted with acrylic paint.
I started to paint with Nay Myo Say (one of Burma’s best known Burmese artists) by hiring a model once a week. Sometimes the model disappeared, I couldn’t find her and then I couldn’t paint.
When my elder sister came home from school, she used to be so tired and she would undress and rest. I asked her to model for me because I had nobody. I could only think about painting nudes, I wasn’t interested in any other kind of painting.
Even standing at a bus stop, I saw people in this way. I undressed people in my imagination. I didn't care whether the person was beautiful or not. I imagined it would be very nice to paint pictures of them, observing their body structure. I painted in my imagination. I observed everybody I came across—fat people, too.
It was very convenient for me when my sister became my model. I showed my portraits of her to my teacher, she liked them, said I was lucky to have such a model and encouraged me to continue. My sister still poses as a model for me. I don't let my mother know about it. My mother doesn't accept my work as paintings. And there are some difficulties about it inside the country.
Q: What feelings do you want to evoke with these paintings of plump, chubby and obese nude women?
A: I want to say that not only slim people but also fat people are beautiful. Fat women exhibit many more lines, and we can see beauty in these lines. There are double or triple stomachs, many ‘steps’ [of flesh] on their backs and their thighs, too. They are beautiful lines.
Q: Your exhibition also includes seven male nudes. What distinction do you make between male and female nudes?
A: The same. I feel the same. I just want to present lines, the beauty of lines.
Q: Have you exhibited in Burma?
A: Yes, at the French embassy about seven months ago. I sold six, to foreigners. I brought to Thailand about 40 paintings that I showed there. Small ones. It is not easy to exhibit these paintings, apart from in embassies. Even at home, I have to cover them up, otherwise my mother would scold me.
There are many artists who paint nudes in Burma. But they also have problems showing their work. I have about 25 large paintings, about 4ft by 5ft in Rangoon, which are difficult to exhibit because of their size.
Q: What other difficulties do you experience in painting nudes?
A: It is very difficult to find models. Most models are prostitutes. Although they are prostitutes, they are reluctant to sit before groups of three or four artists. They have never done this before. We have to explain that we are going to draw their beauty. We have to treat them like our family members. Later they understand. They say that they knew how to be a prostitute but not to be a nude model.
October 10, 2008
Thai Democracy at a Critical Juncture
Four months since the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) initiated anti-government protests in Bangkok, the situation looks more precarious than ever.
On Tuesday, the standoff turned fatally violent when riot police confronted the demonstrators. The deputy prime minister resigned and then called for a military coup; two of the PAD leaders were arrested, then released; and no one seems to know what will happen next.
On Thursday, The Irrawaddy interviewed Dr Naruemon Thabchumpon, the director of the Master of Arts Program in International Development Studies at the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. A specialist in comparative democratic studies and the politics of civil society and grassroots movements, she spoke about the failings of the PAD, the government and the security forces, and she urged all parties to restrain from using violence and to solve the political crisis through negotiations.
Question: Whenever there is a crisis in Thailand, the country’s academics usually play a major role in providing perspective, in commentaries and analyses. What is the feeling among Bangkok’s academics since riot police clashed with PAD demonstrators in front of parliament on October 7?
Answer: In my opinion, there are problems on both sides. We have debated whether the police followed proper procedure in dispersing the demonstrators, especially in using tear gas, which resulted in one fatality, and some 40 major and 400 minor injuries.
Basically, the police might say that they acted legitimately, because the new government has a time limit to announce a policy statement (15 days) and the deadline fell on October 9. It was a constitutional problem.
However, the police can’t deny responsibility, because as state authorities, they can’t just hit people because the people disagree with the state.
On the other hand, we question the PAD leaders’ preparations for such a police dispersal. The PAD’s motive was that they do not want the government to be able to address the new government’s policies. When we talk about violence, we can’t talk only about physical violence. We need to talk about “vocal violence” in creating the possibility of violence. Both sides have to be criticized.
In fact, the government had several options: First, they could have changed the location of the parliament meeting when they already knew that the PAD had occupied all the entrances to the parliament; Second, they could have negotiated with the PAD leaders to open the gates for the MPs; Third, they could have used shields, batons, handcuffs and water cannons to disperse the crowd.
In all civilized countries, the use of tear gas is a last step. In this case, the police didn’t use anything except tear gas. This is the first problem. I listened to what a high-ranking police officer said: that the demonstration had been taking place for more than 100 days so they didn’t need to warn them any more. You can’t talk like that. As police, you have to do just that. Secondly, when police fire tear gas, they have to aim it 45˚ into the air; but they aimed directly at the crowd and fired. They later admitted that the border patrol police were untrained and didn’t know how to shoot tear gas. This is a problem of mismanagement and improper conduct.
Q: Instead of deploying the metropolitan police force, they used the border patrol police. Why did this happen and from which border area were these police called in from to crack down on the demonstrators?
A: Some police probably came from Ratchaburi Province (80 km west of Bangkok, bordering Burma) You might say that the metropolitan police were already being used inside the parliament building—that there were not enough of them because they also had to take care of the MPs, the political leaders and other places in Bangkok.
Basically, this is an example of the mismanagement. If you want to handle or disperse demonstrations, you need to use trained riot police. In this case, the police and those in charge need to take responsibility.
Even though I disagree with him on many issues, I admired former Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who resigned as deputy prime minister by showing his responsibility for the injuries to people on the morning of October 7. But I didn’t hear a word of sorrow from the other responsible persons, such as the prime minister or the house speaker.
The second group that needs to take the responsibility is the PAD leadership. I think theirs was a poor and unplanned strategy. You can say that you have the right to organize or assemble under the Thai constitution. But even in a peaceful demonstration, the leaders have to inform the authorities and be prepared for the police to disperse the demonstration.
If we are to talk about peaceful demonstrations or non-violent action, strictly speaking, we have to follow the principles of Gandhi. You can’t just say that the crowd used Molotov cocktails because they were angry. You can’t put barbed wire, car tires and gasoline in front of the demonstration. This creates a conspiratorial feeling on whether you really want violence or non-violence.
If we compare this to the Burmese situation, the strongest point of Aung San Suu Kyi is that she allows herself to suffer by going on hunger strike or adopting non-violent action, rather than creating anger. I think this is a lesson that the PAD leaders need to be aware of.
Q: Do you think that the military leadership is shifting from the paradigm of the old-fashioned coup d’état to a new era of Thai military?
A: I don’t think. If a metropolitan police officer was burned by a Molotov cocktail on October 7, it could have brought about another military coup in Thailand. But the military leaders have already learned that it is very, very difficult to run the country after a coup. They learned that the 2006 coup didn’t solve the problems of the country. It is easy to conduct a coup, but I don’t see any military leaders who are strong enough to run the country, especially in these times of global economic recession.
Q: Although the military commander in chief is more powerful than a civilian politician, can he really play the role of negotiator?
A: The reason that Chavalit was appointed as deputy prime minister was to be mediator between the government and the PAD. It didn’t work because of mismanagement.
Avoiding a military coup, the Thai military has now gained credibility. When the police couldn’t handle the crackdown on the PAD demonstration on October 7, the military stepped in—not to crack down on the demonstrators, but just to protect state property in that area, including the Chitralada Royal Palace.
Q: Some people said Thai democracy is progressing, pointing to a greater openness and public participation in politics. But others say it might be heading toward anarchy. What is your opinion on that?
A: Probably not toward anarchy yet. I think Thai democracy is at a critical juncture. There is now a bipolarizing conflict between the electoral democracy and the aristocratic democracy. The electoral democracy is monopolized by the capitalists, losing plurality. The electoral system in Thailand has already been damaged during the last ten years of the parliamentary process. That is trouble, and to solve the problem you need electoral reform, not to destroy democracy. This is what the PAD need to learn if they really want to be a people’s alliance for democracy.
There must be space for negotiation and compromise. Nobody will win 100 percent. One value of democracy is tolerance, and October 7 gave us a lesson on patience and tolerance.
Q: What is your involvement as an academic at this critical moment in Thai politics?
A: I joined the movement as part of a non-violent action team, which is composed of academics, social activists and artists. We issued a statement on non-violent practices on the evening of October 7. That night, we went to Democracy Monument, lit candles and prayed for those who were dead and injured during the violence.
As non-violent practitioners, we encouraged both sides to disarm and to start negotiations.
Also, about 30 universities held a meeting and issued a statement of concern. We also commented on the action of the medical team at Chulalongkorn University Hospital which refused to take care of the wounded police officers. They can’t do that even if they feel angry and frustrated. They have to value the principle of nondiscrimination.
You can construct a political system, but you can’t bring back a life. We support non-violent means and hope to lead the public to become more rational. This is the duty of the academics.
On Tuesday, the standoff turned fatally violent when riot police confronted the demonstrators. The deputy prime minister resigned and then called for a military coup; two of the PAD leaders were arrested, then released; and no one seems to know what will happen next.
On Thursday, The Irrawaddy interviewed Dr Naruemon Thabchumpon, the director of the Master of Arts Program in International Development Studies at the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. A specialist in comparative democratic studies and the politics of civil society and grassroots movements, she spoke about the failings of the PAD, the government and the security forces, and she urged all parties to restrain from using violence and to solve the political crisis through negotiations.
Question: Whenever there is a crisis in Thailand, the country’s academics usually play a major role in providing perspective, in commentaries and analyses. What is the feeling among Bangkok’s academics since riot police clashed with PAD demonstrators in front of parliament on October 7?
Answer: In my opinion, there are problems on both sides. We have debated whether the police followed proper procedure in dispersing the demonstrators, especially in using tear gas, which resulted in one fatality, and some 40 major and 400 minor injuries.
Basically, the police might say that they acted legitimately, because the new government has a time limit to announce a policy statement (15 days) and the deadline fell on October 9. It was a constitutional problem.
However, the police can’t deny responsibility, because as state authorities, they can’t just hit people because the people disagree with the state.
On the other hand, we question the PAD leaders’ preparations for such a police dispersal. The PAD’s motive was that they do not want the government to be able to address the new government’s policies. When we talk about violence, we can’t talk only about physical violence. We need to talk about “vocal violence” in creating the possibility of violence. Both sides have to be criticized.
In fact, the government had several options: First, they could have changed the location of the parliament meeting when they already knew that the PAD had occupied all the entrances to the parliament; Second, they could have negotiated with the PAD leaders to open the gates for the MPs; Third, they could have used shields, batons, handcuffs and water cannons to disperse the crowd.
In all civilized countries, the use of tear gas is a last step. In this case, the police didn’t use anything except tear gas. This is the first problem. I listened to what a high-ranking police officer said: that the demonstration had been taking place for more than 100 days so they didn’t need to warn them any more. You can’t talk like that. As police, you have to do just that. Secondly, when police fire tear gas, they have to aim it 45˚ into the air; but they aimed directly at the crowd and fired. They later admitted that the border patrol police were untrained and didn’t know how to shoot tear gas. This is a problem of mismanagement and improper conduct.
Q: Instead of deploying the metropolitan police force, they used the border patrol police. Why did this happen and from which border area were these police called in from to crack down on the demonstrators?
A: Some police probably came from Ratchaburi Province (80 km west of Bangkok, bordering Burma) You might say that the metropolitan police were already being used inside the parliament building—that there were not enough of them because they also had to take care of the MPs, the political leaders and other places in Bangkok.
Basically, this is an example of the mismanagement. If you want to handle or disperse demonstrations, you need to use trained riot police. In this case, the police and those in charge need to take responsibility.
Even though I disagree with him on many issues, I admired former Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who resigned as deputy prime minister by showing his responsibility for the injuries to people on the morning of October 7. But I didn’t hear a word of sorrow from the other responsible persons, such as the prime minister or the house speaker.
The second group that needs to take the responsibility is the PAD leadership. I think theirs was a poor and unplanned strategy. You can say that you have the right to organize or assemble under the Thai constitution. But even in a peaceful demonstration, the leaders have to inform the authorities and be prepared for the police to disperse the demonstration.
If we are to talk about peaceful demonstrations or non-violent action, strictly speaking, we have to follow the principles of Gandhi. You can’t just say that the crowd used Molotov cocktails because they were angry. You can’t put barbed wire, car tires and gasoline in front of the demonstration. This creates a conspiratorial feeling on whether you really want violence or non-violence.
If we compare this to the Burmese situation, the strongest point of Aung San Suu Kyi is that she allows herself to suffer by going on hunger strike or adopting non-violent action, rather than creating anger. I think this is a lesson that the PAD leaders need to be aware of.
Q: Do you think that the military leadership is shifting from the paradigm of the old-fashioned coup d’état to a new era of Thai military?
A: I don’t think. If a metropolitan police officer was burned by a Molotov cocktail on October 7, it could have brought about another military coup in Thailand. But the military leaders have already learned that it is very, very difficult to run the country after a coup. They learned that the 2006 coup didn’t solve the problems of the country. It is easy to conduct a coup, but I don’t see any military leaders who are strong enough to run the country, especially in these times of global economic recession.
Q: Although the military commander in chief is more powerful than a civilian politician, can he really play the role of negotiator?
A: The reason that Chavalit was appointed as deputy prime minister was to be mediator between the government and the PAD. It didn’t work because of mismanagement.
Avoiding a military coup, the Thai military has now gained credibility. When the police couldn’t handle the crackdown on the PAD demonstration on October 7, the military stepped in—not to crack down on the demonstrators, but just to protect state property in that area, including the Chitralada Royal Palace.
Q: Some people said Thai democracy is progressing, pointing to a greater openness and public participation in politics. But others say it might be heading toward anarchy. What is your opinion on that?
A: Probably not toward anarchy yet. I think Thai democracy is at a critical juncture. There is now a bipolarizing conflict between the electoral democracy and the aristocratic democracy. The electoral democracy is monopolized by the capitalists, losing plurality. The electoral system in Thailand has already been damaged during the last ten years of the parliamentary process. That is trouble, and to solve the problem you need electoral reform, not to destroy democracy. This is what the PAD need to learn if they really want to be a people’s alliance for democracy.
There must be space for negotiation and compromise. Nobody will win 100 percent. One value of democracy is tolerance, and October 7 gave us a lesson on patience and tolerance.
Q: What is your involvement as an academic at this critical moment in Thai politics?
A: I joined the movement as part of a non-violent action team, which is composed of academics, social activists and artists. We issued a statement on non-violent practices on the evening of October 7. That night, we went to Democracy Monument, lit candles and prayed for those who were dead and injured during the violence.
As non-violent practitioners, we encouraged both sides to disarm and to start negotiations.
Also, about 30 universities held a meeting and issued a statement of concern. We also commented on the action of the medical team at Chulalongkorn University Hospital which refused to take care of the wounded police officers. They can’t do that even if they feel angry and frustrated. They have to value the principle of nondiscrimination.
You can construct a political system, but you can’t bring back a life. We support non-violent means and hope to lead the public to become more rational. This is the duty of the academics.
September 26, 2008
Doing What Needs to be Done
By THE IRRAWADDY
Earlier this week, The Irrawaddy spoke with Win Tin, Burma’s longest-serving political prisoner, who was released on Tuesday after spending 19 years behind bars. He spoke of his commitment to the cause of democracy, his faith in the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, and his gratitude to supporters and those have already sacrificed much for the sake of their country.
Question: Why did the junta release you?
Answer: It was an insincere act. It was cheating. I was serving a 20-year sentence. According to the jail manual [which sets prison regulations], there should be a 3-month reduction for each year that you serve of your prison term. Those who are sentenced to 20 years should only have to stay in prison for 15 or 16 years. That’s because after serving 16 years, you should get a 48-month reduction. That’s four years off the original sentence. I should have been released [three years ago].
I was put on the list of prisoners who could be released under Section 401 [of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for early release at the discretion of the military authorities], but I was not released because I didn’t accept [the conditions set by the government]. I always refused to sign an agreement to accede to a reduction of my prison term under Section 401.
At first, I was given a 3-year sentence in 1989. In 1991, they fed me lunch and offered to release me under Section 401. I refused their offer. Then again in 1995, when U Kyi Maung and U Tin Oo were released, I was again given an opportunity to be released under Section 401. I refused it again. In February 2008, when I was hospitalized, I was again offered release under Section 401; again, I refused.
They released me [this time] under Section 401, even though I had refused to accept it several times. I insisted that I should be released because I was entitled to be released—that’s all. So the military government just lumped me together with all the other released prisoners. In that way, they diluted the problem. That’s what I mean when I say they cheated.
Q: How could you stand to stay in prison for over 19 years?
A: Sometimes I was disappointed or discouraged or not in a good mood, as I am only human. I am not a man of iron. But I was able to stand it because I always kept three principles in mind by repeating to myself the words Suu Hlut Twe. “Suu” means Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and stands for [our demand for] the unconditional release of all political prisoners. “Hlut” stands for convening the People’s Parliament, the Hluttaw. And “Twe” means dialogue.
By keeping these three principles in mind, I was able to endure my time in prison. I applied them together in every situation. For example, when we demanded prisoners’ rights, we always raised the issues of convening the Hluttaw and dialogue at the same time. Even if we could not meet with senior leaders of the regime, we could demand these things when we met with the prison authorities. In this way, we maintained the principle of dialogue at all times.
Another principle I held is the “three supports.” We have to support the National League for Democracy. The NLD is our organization. If you talk about democracy, there must be organizations. The junta will be very happy if it disintegrates. Concerning the NLD’s strengths and weaknesses, we should try to turn the weaknesses into strengths. So we should support the NLD.
Another thing we need to support is the Hluttaw. Parliament’s mandate comes from the people. It is not just the NLD’s mandate. It is also about other parties. That’s why the parliament must be supported.
We also need to support Daw Suu’s leadership. Daw Suu is the most important person in the whole movement. She might have some flaws. It is not about a personality cult. Daw Suu’s role and activities have been very important over the past 20 years. Her leadership should not be dwarfed or diminished. So support Daw Suu’s leadership.
I think I could stand to stay in prison because I firmly grasped these principles. But like I said before, I am not made of iron. I was sometimes unhappy or in poor health. But I did not lose sight of the current political situation and maintained my strength of mind because of these principles.
Q: The military government said they are meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. And they are planning to hold an election in 2010. Some people, including [writer and former NLD MP] Maung Sue San, have said that the election is the only pragmatic way forward. So what do you think about the 2010 election?
A: I think it should be considered together with dialogue. The military junta has blocked the way forward; it has placed an obstacle in the way. The obstacle is the constitution, which includes registration laws for political parties and election laws [that impose restrictions on the political activities of opposition parties]. So the road ahead is blocked.
Ko Sue San said that dialogue is just a decoration. I don’t accept that. This is the way of the defeated. Yes, the way is blocked. The junta has planned it that way since it first held the National Convention [to draft a new constitution] in 1992. That’s why I have always said we could not legitimize it by taking part in it.
I have always said we must boycott the National Convention. I said the same thing to [US Congressman] Mr Bill Richardson in 1994. I said it in front of the prison authorities and military intelligence. I have never accepted the National Convention. It is a sham.
We have always believed in solving problems through democratic dialogue. Even before 1992, the NLD took this line in October 1988. Daw Suu signed [a letter calling for dialogue] in October and send it to SLORC [the State Law and Order Restoration Council, which seized power in September 1988].
That’s when the junta proposed the National Convention. Now, the constitution has appeared and the road has been blocked. The only way around it is through dialogue. Although the road has been blocked, we will continue to demand [dialogue] until the road is totally closed. So I do not accept that dialogue is just a decoration.
We can still demand dialogue. At least, we have to tell the junta not to block the way. Why can’t we correct them? We cannot take it easy.
Q: If you had a chance to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, what advice would you give her?
A: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader. I accept her leadership. She can perform a lot more than me politically or spiritually or in terms of sacrifice. I have always believed in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s intelligence, determination and commitment.
If I had a chance to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, I would ask her, “What do you think? What can I do to support your idea?” I believe she already has her own ideas. I am not talking about blind allegiance. But I would ask her what needs to be done, and I would do what I can.
I did politics for just nine months, and had to stay in prison for 19 years. So obviously I am just a political layperson. I just work. People talk about me in various ways. They say I can advise Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but I reject that role. I am not saying this out of false humility. I think Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is extraordinarily smart, and that the ideas that come out of her head are so good that they don’t need to be changed. I worked full time to realize them. That’s all. I can do more than other people because I am single. Before, I could work 15 or 16 hours a day. I worked this way at The Mirror, too.
Q: Some critics say that without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD would die. Now she is under house arrest, and some critics say that the current NLD leadership is too weak to bring about political change. What do you think of the NLD’s current leadership?
A: Your question has two parts. I will answer the first part first, because it is more interesting.
It is true that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is very smart and admirable. But it doesn’t matter for the organization whether she is present or not. When I say that [the NLD] must work even if she is not around, it doesn’t mean that she is not important. The fact that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader will not disappear.
[Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, independence leader] Gen Aung San was assassinated, but his spirit remained and the [Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League] lived on after he died. Did the AFPFL disappear after Aung San died? No.
In the same way, I don’t believe the NLD will simply vanish without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her spirit will remain. She will remain a model even after she dies or retires. As long as her spirit exists in the NLD, the organization will survive.
Regarding the second point about the current leadership, I would like to say that they are human beings. Isn’t that so? [Some people also criticize me.] For example, yesterday a friend of mine told me not to be too emotional. But I am not emotional. I am trying to build up dynamism. Some may say that the old man is talking nonsense. He is outdated. There are a lot of things he does not understand. That may be true. It is possible that there are things I don’t understand yet.
I try to take this into account. I know I have a lot of flaws. But I am trying to be active. Why do I want to build up dynamism? Because without it, we have nothing.
Right now, I am giving a lot of interviews. I could make excuses [for not giving interviews], like saying I have to meditate, or my business is not good. Why am I speaking with so many people? Because I want dynamism. I don’t have time to listen to what I have said to check how much of it is right or wrong. I just keep talking. Yesterday, I talked from six in the morning until four in the evening. After that I continued talking until 11 or 12 o’clock at night.
Why am I talking in this way? Because I want to spread dynamism. I may say something wrong, or miss something. If people blame me for it, I will accept their criticism. But don’t accuse me of lacking dynamism.
I think the current NLD leadership has been doing what they can do. Perhaps they lack dynamism. We might need to push them a little. If something is lacking, we need to address it. If they are wrong, we need to criticize them. It is an organization. An organization needs internal discussion. We need to talk about the leadership. I don’t want to blame them. If there is something unacceptable, I will say so. I will correct, direct and support them. So I don’t side with the leadership or blame them. The leadership is doing what they can do. What they do is right to some extent. If there is something wrong, we will correct it.
Q: What are your plans now that you have contact with the outside world after 19 years in prison?
A: I will do democracy politics. I now am 79 years old. To tell the truth, I don’t know very much about politics. I was involved in politics for only about 9 months. If you count my experience in prison, it’s a much longer time. But because I had to stay alone in the prison, I could not discuss, talk, negotiate, argue or set goals. I was alone. So my political experience is just a little. But I have many reasons [for wanting to continue my political work]. One is that I am one of the founding members of the NLD. So I believe I can continue to do politics by siding with the NLD, which is working for the true cause of democracy. So in short, I want to say that I will continue to do my democracy politics.
Q: One last question. What would you like to say to people who have been working for your release, and to your friends and fellow activists working for democracy in Burma?
A: I was very encouraged. There is nothing I can say, except that it helped me a great deal. I had many difficulties in prison, such as with the food and being unable to meet with relatives and other prisoners. I am very grateful for the encouragement, support and supplies that I received when I was experiencing difficult times. So I thank you for that.
This encouragement is still very important to me, because to be frank, politics can only be done with encouragement. No one can do it just by sitting and thinking. There has to be enthusiasm. That’s why I am enthusiastic. Whether I am inside or outside the prison, or support comes from inside or outside the country, it is very important. I will be active, dynamic and lively [because] I am very encouraged by this support.
Another thing I want to say is that there are a lot of people who have died, who no longer do politics, who are staying away from politics. But they did a lot. For example, some NLD leaders like Maung Thaw Ka, U Tin Maung Win and U Tin Shwe, and U Khin Maung Myint from [the disbanded People’s Progressive Party], all died in prison. Some people also lost their appetite and couldn’t sleep because they lost everything they had—property, businesses, their whole lives—in prison. There are a lot of people who have done more and made greater sacrifices than I have. We owe them our gratitude.
There are also some people who are staying away from politics for various reasons. We need to recognize what they have done. We need to understand and value what they have sacrificed.
So we should be thankful to those who have been supporting us, both inside and outside the country. It encourages us very much. And at the same time, we must not forget those who have sacrificed many things, including those who have passed away in prison. We need to value and remember what they have done. That’s all I would like to say.
Earlier this week, The Irrawaddy spoke with Win Tin, Burma’s longest-serving political prisoner, who was released on Tuesday after spending 19 years behind bars. He spoke of his commitment to the cause of democracy, his faith in the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi, and his gratitude to supporters and those have already sacrificed much for the sake of their country.
Question: Why did the junta release you?
Answer: It was an insincere act. It was cheating. I was serving a 20-year sentence. According to the jail manual [which sets prison regulations], there should be a 3-month reduction for each year that you serve of your prison term. Those who are sentenced to 20 years should only have to stay in prison for 15 or 16 years. That’s because after serving 16 years, you should get a 48-month reduction. That’s four years off the original sentence. I should have been released [three years ago].
I was put on the list of prisoners who could be released under Section 401 [of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for early release at the discretion of the military authorities], but I was not released because I didn’t accept [the conditions set by the government]. I always refused to sign an agreement to accede to a reduction of my prison term under Section 401.
At first, I was given a 3-year sentence in 1989. In 1991, they fed me lunch and offered to release me under Section 401. I refused their offer. Then again in 1995, when U Kyi Maung and U Tin Oo were released, I was again given an opportunity to be released under Section 401. I refused it again. In February 2008, when I was hospitalized, I was again offered release under Section 401; again, I refused.
They released me [this time] under Section 401, even though I had refused to accept it several times. I insisted that I should be released because I was entitled to be released—that’s all. So the military government just lumped me together with all the other released prisoners. In that way, they diluted the problem. That’s what I mean when I say they cheated.
Q: How could you stand to stay in prison for over 19 years?
A: Sometimes I was disappointed or discouraged or not in a good mood, as I am only human. I am not a man of iron. But I was able to stand it because I always kept three principles in mind by repeating to myself the words Suu Hlut Twe. “Suu” means Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and stands for [our demand for] the unconditional release of all political prisoners. “Hlut” stands for convening the People’s Parliament, the Hluttaw. And “Twe” means dialogue.
By keeping these three principles in mind, I was able to endure my time in prison. I applied them together in every situation. For example, when we demanded prisoners’ rights, we always raised the issues of convening the Hluttaw and dialogue at the same time. Even if we could not meet with senior leaders of the regime, we could demand these things when we met with the prison authorities. In this way, we maintained the principle of dialogue at all times.
Another principle I held is the “three supports.” We have to support the National League for Democracy. The NLD is our organization. If you talk about democracy, there must be organizations. The junta will be very happy if it disintegrates. Concerning the NLD’s strengths and weaknesses, we should try to turn the weaknesses into strengths. So we should support the NLD.
Another thing we need to support is the Hluttaw. Parliament’s mandate comes from the people. It is not just the NLD’s mandate. It is also about other parties. That’s why the parliament must be supported.
We also need to support Daw Suu’s leadership. Daw Suu is the most important person in the whole movement. She might have some flaws. It is not about a personality cult. Daw Suu’s role and activities have been very important over the past 20 years. Her leadership should not be dwarfed or diminished. So support Daw Suu’s leadership.
I think I could stand to stay in prison because I firmly grasped these principles. But like I said before, I am not made of iron. I was sometimes unhappy or in poor health. But I did not lose sight of the current political situation and maintained my strength of mind because of these principles.
Q: The military government said they are meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. And they are planning to hold an election in 2010. Some people, including [writer and former NLD MP] Maung Sue San, have said that the election is the only pragmatic way forward. So what do you think about the 2010 election?
A: I think it should be considered together with dialogue. The military junta has blocked the way forward; it has placed an obstacle in the way. The obstacle is the constitution, which includes registration laws for political parties and election laws [that impose restrictions on the political activities of opposition parties]. So the road ahead is blocked.
Ko Sue San said that dialogue is just a decoration. I don’t accept that. This is the way of the defeated. Yes, the way is blocked. The junta has planned it that way since it first held the National Convention [to draft a new constitution] in 1992. That’s why I have always said we could not legitimize it by taking part in it.
I have always said we must boycott the National Convention. I said the same thing to [US Congressman] Mr Bill Richardson in 1994. I said it in front of the prison authorities and military intelligence. I have never accepted the National Convention. It is a sham.
We have always believed in solving problems through democratic dialogue. Even before 1992, the NLD took this line in October 1988. Daw Suu signed [a letter calling for dialogue] in October and send it to SLORC [the State Law and Order Restoration Council, which seized power in September 1988].
That’s when the junta proposed the National Convention. Now, the constitution has appeared and the road has been blocked. The only way around it is through dialogue. Although the road has been blocked, we will continue to demand [dialogue] until the road is totally closed. So I do not accept that dialogue is just a decoration.
We can still demand dialogue. At least, we have to tell the junta not to block the way. Why can’t we correct them? We cannot take it easy.
Q: If you had a chance to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, what advice would you give her?
A: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader. I accept her leadership. She can perform a lot more than me politically or spiritually or in terms of sacrifice. I have always believed in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s intelligence, determination and commitment.
If I had a chance to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, I would ask her, “What do you think? What can I do to support your idea?” I believe she already has her own ideas. I am not talking about blind allegiance. But I would ask her what needs to be done, and I would do what I can.
I did politics for just nine months, and had to stay in prison for 19 years. So obviously I am just a political layperson. I just work. People talk about me in various ways. They say I can advise Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, but I reject that role. I am not saying this out of false humility. I think Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is extraordinarily smart, and that the ideas that come out of her head are so good that they don’t need to be changed. I worked full time to realize them. That’s all. I can do more than other people because I am single. Before, I could work 15 or 16 hours a day. I worked this way at The Mirror, too.
Q: Some critics say that without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD would die. Now she is under house arrest, and some critics say that the current NLD leadership is too weak to bring about political change. What do you think of the NLD’s current leadership?
A: Your question has two parts. I will answer the first part first, because it is more interesting.
It is true that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is very smart and admirable. But it doesn’t matter for the organization whether she is present or not. When I say that [the NLD] must work even if she is not around, it doesn’t mean that she is not important. The fact that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader will not disappear.
[Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, independence leader] Gen Aung San was assassinated, but his spirit remained and the [Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League] lived on after he died. Did the AFPFL disappear after Aung San died? No.
In the same way, I don’t believe the NLD will simply vanish without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her spirit will remain. She will remain a model even after she dies or retires. As long as her spirit exists in the NLD, the organization will survive.
Regarding the second point about the current leadership, I would like to say that they are human beings. Isn’t that so? [Some people also criticize me.] For example, yesterday a friend of mine told me not to be too emotional. But I am not emotional. I am trying to build up dynamism. Some may say that the old man is talking nonsense. He is outdated. There are a lot of things he does not understand. That may be true. It is possible that there are things I don’t understand yet.
I try to take this into account. I know I have a lot of flaws. But I am trying to be active. Why do I want to build up dynamism? Because without it, we have nothing.
Right now, I am giving a lot of interviews. I could make excuses [for not giving interviews], like saying I have to meditate, or my business is not good. Why am I speaking with so many people? Because I want dynamism. I don’t have time to listen to what I have said to check how much of it is right or wrong. I just keep talking. Yesterday, I talked from six in the morning until four in the evening. After that I continued talking until 11 or 12 o’clock at night.
Why am I talking in this way? Because I want to spread dynamism. I may say something wrong, or miss something. If people blame me for it, I will accept their criticism. But don’t accuse me of lacking dynamism.
I think the current NLD leadership has been doing what they can do. Perhaps they lack dynamism. We might need to push them a little. If something is lacking, we need to address it. If they are wrong, we need to criticize them. It is an organization. An organization needs internal discussion. We need to talk about the leadership. I don’t want to blame them. If there is something unacceptable, I will say so. I will correct, direct and support them. So I don’t side with the leadership or blame them. The leadership is doing what they can do. What they do is right to some extent. If there is something wrong, we will correct it.
Q: What are your plans now that you have contact with the outside world after 19 years in prison?
A: I will do democracy politics. I now am 79 years old. To tell the truth, I don’t know very much about politics. I was involved in politics for only about 9 months. If you count my experience in prison, it’s a much longer time. But because I had to stay alone in the prison, I could not discuss, talk, negotiate, argue or set goals. I was alone. So my political experience is just a little. But I have many reasons [for wanting to continue my political work]. One is that I am one of the founding members of the NLD. So I believe I can continue to do politics by siding with the NLD, which is working for the true cause of democracy. So in short, I want to say that I will continue to do my democracy politics.
Q: One last question. What would you like to say to people who have been working for your release, and to your friends and fellow activists working for democracy in Burma?
A: I was very encouraged. There is nothing I can say, except that it helped me a great deal. I had many difficulties in prison, such as with the food and being unable to meet with relatives and other prisoners. I am very grateful for the encouragement, support and supplies that I received when I was experiencing difficult times. So I thank you for that.
This encouragement is still very important to me, because to be frank, politics can only be done with encouragement. No one can do it just by sitting and thinking. There has to be enthusiasm. That’s why I am enthusiastic. Whether I am inside or outside the prison, or support comes from inside or outside the country, it is very important. I will be active, dynamic and lively [because] I am very encouraged by this support.
Another thing I want to say is that there are a lot of people who have died, who no longer do politics, who are staying away from politics. But they did a lot. For example, some NLD leaders like Maung Thaw Ka, U Tin Maung Win and U Tin Shwe, and U Khin Maung Myint from [the disbanded People’s Progressive Party], all died in prison. Some people also lost their appetite and couldn’t sleep because they lost everything they had—property, businesses, their whole lives—in prison. There are a lot of people who have done more and made greater sacrifices than I have. We owe them our gratitude.
There are also some people who are staying away from politics for various reasons. We need to recognize what they have done. We need to understand and value what they have sacrificed.
So we should be thankful to those who have been supporting us, both inside and outside the country. It encourages us very much. And at the same time, we must not forget those who have sacrificed many things, including those who have passed away in prison. We need to value and remember what they have done. That’s all I would like to say.
September 22, 2008
Taking a Deep Breath
The Irrawaddy recently spoke with UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari about his meetings with Aung San Suu Kyi, his disappointments and his hopes for the future of Burma.
Question: Several UN special envoys to Burma have come and gone over the past 20 years, each time leaving the country empty-handed. What is your take on that?
Answer: Well, I can only speak for my own role. I took on this assignment in May 2006 as Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, but I was not designated as special advisor on Myanmar [Burma] until May last year. So my own engagement is rather more recent.
It has had its ups and downs. But I think—if one wants to be fair—one has to see that before I came, for two and half years, no special envoy of the UN was even allowed in the country.
I am probably the only foreigner to be allowed to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, which I have done on seven occasions. I think it is also fair to say that we have therefore opened a high-level engagement between the UN and the authorities in Myanmar.
They can't claim that they are not hearing the message of the international community, because we have been saying this directly and indirectly. Directly to them and through my reporting to them through the General Assembly President, the Group of Friends and the Security Council at their request.
It is also fair to say that in the aftermath of the crisis—in September and October—we managed to establish the commencement of dialogue, between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi. It is regrettable that that high promise has not been realized.
Q: So what went wrong between then and now?
A: I believe—from my last conversation with Aung San Suu Kyi in March—that she posed a number of questions through the minister [Aung Kyi] to the authorities and did not get answers.
Sometimes, she didn’t get the answer fast enough because, she believes, the level of the interlocutor was not high enough.
We—the United Nations, the Good Offices Role of the Secretary-General—supports the request that this dialogue should be resumed and should not be broken up even when there are disagreements, and that the government should consider raising the level of the interlocutor on their side so that there would be prompt responses to her questions.
Q: When you went to Burma last time, Suu Kyi refused to meet you. Why?
A: To be honest with you, I do not know.
What I can say for sure [is that] I have met her seven times now since May 2006 and each time she always emphasized this: the central role the UN is promoting dialogue between her and the government and is bridging an all-inclusive process of national reconciliation.
Secondly, she has often expressed disappointment on the couple of occasions I have been in Myanmar that I have not been received at the highest level of the government. So it was quite a surprise to me and a disappointment, frankly, because each time I have met her, I am able to report her views to the UN.
Since so many things had happened since I last met her in March—the referendum, the cyclone, the constitution—I would have very much liked to hear her views on all these issues and report them faithfully to those who are interested.
And, I do often pass on her views to the authorities and her position to engage in time-bound substantive dialogue.
Q: What is your sense on why she did it?
A: There are all kinds of speculation. One is that she is frustrated. She wanted to show her frustration with her continued detention and her frustration with the slow pace of the political process.
I think she may have had a point.
Q: During your last visit, was the military junta the only channel of communication between you and Suu Kyi?
A: Yes. I tell the government beforehand who I would like to see and they make the arrangements. Often I do not get what I request, unfortunately.
Q: You are very often accused of becoming a prisoner of the government when you go there. You spend most of your time meeting officials and people who support the government, and not the opposition leaders.
A: Well, that is not entirely fair. For example, the last time I met with the NLD central executive committee twice. The second meeting was more than an hour. It was very substantive, very productive. And the statement that came out of the NLD was that they were pleased with the meeting.
I also met with the minister in charge of relations with Aung San Suu Kyi and had a good discussion on how to resume dialogue. I wanted to find out what is really responsible for this break in dialogue, and how it can be revived.
I met, of course, with other representatives of civil society—the Red Cross and the Chamber of Commerce, but it is true that most of the people I met were pro-government.
Q: After your last visit, a number of Burmese people and observers said that your mission has failed—your mission had lost steam. Do you think that’s fair?
A: The [UN] Secretary-General, on whose behalf I act, has come out to say that he does not regard the mission as a failure—that it is a process of consultation, of mediation.
But it is also very clear that we are frustrated that no tangible results are coming out of the process. That is what the people of Myanmar want and that is what the international community expects.
I left five issues in the hands of the government:
First: The release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Second: The commencement, without delay, of a substantive time-bound dialogue between the government, Aung San Suu Kyi and others.
Third: to create a climate and enhance the credibility of the process [so that] any future election in the country would be more likely be accepted by the people of Myanmar and the international community.
[Fourth] Then we had the issues of a more broad-based social economic discussion in the country through the creation of a national economic forum.
Fifth: how to regularize the engagement of the Good Offices role of the [UN] Secretary-General and the government. It should be regular and routine, including the possibility of stationing a staff or two of mine in Rangoon to prepare for visits and be liaison persons in between visits.
So, we are waiting for the government [to react] to these points on the table.
Incidentally, when I discussed these points with the central executive committee members of the NLD, they appeared to support all except the election.
I must use this opportunity to say one very important point: people criticize the Good Offices role as, in effect, blessing the government's “Road Map.”
I want to clarify that the road map is the government's road map. The opposition has reservations and the international community has its own views.
It was made very clear that we want an all-inclusive national reconciliation process; a dialogue that [would address] the real concerns of the people; the discussion of social economic issues; and how to achieve a democratic, peaceful united and prosperous Myanmar with full respect for the human rights of its people.
Q: Now there seems to be a deadlock. How do you plan to address it?
A: I prefer to use the word “challenges.” One is how to get the government to respond positively to the five points that we raised during our last visit.
The second is how to get Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD back to the political process fully;
The third challenge is how to bridge the gap between some key members of the international community.
Q: How do you propose to address those challenges?
A: First, the [UN] secretary-general convened a meeting of his “Group of Friends on Myanmar” and he chaired the meeting for two hours last Friday. He plans to have another meeting of the Group of Friends at a ministerial level.
The UN can only be effective and strong if the members want it. So, we need the help of those who have influence on all sides, so that these gaps that are mentioned—these three challenges—can be met.
Also, the [UN] secretary-general has indicated that we have to take a deep breath and rethink, reprioritize our strategy and our point of engagement with the authorities. We can't abandon the people of Myanmar.
Third, the [UN] secretary-general has encouraged Indonesia's initiative to have a small group of some countries who are closest neighbors to Myanmar and who have some [experience] of transition from a military to a democratic regime, and to whom the [Burmese] authorities are more likely to listen to, including China and, we hope, India.
Q: Is that going to be at a Head of the State level?
A: No, I don’t think so; but hopefully at a ministerial level. I think it is up to the Indonesians to announce that.
Q: So now, you would like to pause for a couple of months?
A: Not necessarily. A deep breath, as I said.
Q: When are you next going back to Burma?
A: An invitation has been issued to return. The important thing is not to visit for the sake of it. We need to prepare carefully this time, so that some positive response—a tangible response—to those issues which we left on the table [is forthcoming].
Q: But the [UN] secretary-general is planning to go there in December?
A: He has said very clearly that he went to Myanmar twice under exceptional special circumstances.
It was a very successful mission. The authorities relaxed some of the restrictions and they saw the value of the international cooperation.
One of the positive outcomes of that cooperation was that the tripartite core group mechanism—Burma, Asean and the UN—is working well in the case of Cyclone Nargis.
That showed the authorities in Myanmar that the international community brings positive results and shows how the spirit of cooperation with Asean and the UN could be extended to political matters.
But the [UN] secretary-general has made it very clear that he would go to Myanmar provided that tangible results come out through the Good Offices role, including through my activities.
Q: So there are a few pre-conditions for his visit?
A: I do not want to make it a pre-condition. But, as I said, this is what we would like to see.
Q: Including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi?
A: Including responding positively to all the five issues which I have put on their table.
Q: The French ambassador said outside the Security Council that the [UN] secretary-general needs to put more pressure on Burma. Do you agree with that?
A: We want all those who have influence to exercise this influence in tangible ways on the authorities in Myanmar so that this dialogue will resume without any further delay.
Q: Do you think there is any conflict of interest because you are on the board of the U Thant Institute and, as you know, there is not a good chemistry between the U Thant circle and the Aung San dynasty in Burma?
A: First of all, I was not aware of those dynamics when I joined the U Thant board.
The U Thant Institute is an NGO. I joined the international advisory board of this NGO when I was a special advisor to the [UN] secretary-general on Africa. The role U Thant played as UN secretary-general in Africa is not often clearly understood.
That was my motivation for joining the U Thant Foundation and it remains valid. I do not see any conflict of interest. If I did, I would reassess my membership of the NGO.
Q: What is your own view on the 2010 elections?
A: My own view, which is not that of the [UN] secretary-general is that [although] we are mandated under the Good Offices role to extend technical assistance to countries that request them, [we should not wait] until 2010 to create the conditions that would enhance the credibility of the elections.
We want to act now to prevent disunity and divisions later. It is possible therefore that action can be taken—an all-inclusive process, a transparent process, a process that is free and fair and can be implemented between now and 2010.
Q: After your last visit and so much criticism and calls for your resignation, at any point did you think that you would submit your resignation?
A: As a human being, of course you feel discouraged, particularly when somebody's criticism is based on an erroneous report on my position—in this case the road map and the elections.
But it comes with the territory. For example, I have been characterized as too close to the regime. Well, there was a time when the regime thought I was too close to Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD.
As long as I have the confidence of both sides, and as long as the [UN] secretary-general has confidence in me, I am prepared to continue and engage the challenge. But we need help—it is not a personal thing.
Q: Last question. When you go to Burma, what do you eat—Burmese food or something else?
A: Only Burmese food. The people of Myanmar are very good people. They are endowed with very good mineral resources. They used to be a leading country in Asia—their educational system, rice production, agricultural production.
The country produced the first Asian secretary-general. A country like that deserves to move in a direction, which we all want—a peaceful democratic, united country with full respect for the human rights of its people.
Question: Several UN special envoys to Burma have come and gone over the past 20 years, each time leaving the country empty-handed. What is your take on that?
Answer: Well, I can only speak for my own role. I took on this assignment in May 2006 as Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, but I was not designated as special advisor on Myanmar [Burma] until May last year. So my own engagement is rather more recent.
It has had its ups and downs. But I think—if one wants to be fair—one has to see that before I came, for two and half years, no special envoy of the UN was even allowed in the country.
I am probably the only foreigner to be allowed to meet Aung San Suu Kyi, which I have done on seven occasions. I think it is also fair to say that we have therefore opened a high-level engagement between the UN and the authorities in Myanmar.
They can't claim that they are not hearing the message of the international community, because we have been saying this directly and indirectly. Directly to them and through my reporting to them through the General Assembly President, the Group of Friends and the Security Council at their request.
It is also fair to say that in the aftermath of the crisis—in September and October—we managed to establish the commencement of dialogue, between the government and Aung San Suu Kyi. It is regrettable that that high promise has not been realized.
Q: So what went wrong between then and now?
A: I believe—from my last conversation with Aung San Suu Kyi in March—that she posed a number of questions through the minister [Aung Kyi] to the authorities and did not get answers.
Sometimes, she didn’t get the answer fast enough because, she believes, the level of the interlocutor was not high enough.
We—the United Nations, the Good Offices Role of the Secretary-General—supports the request that this dialogue should be resumed and should not be broken up even when there are disagreements, and that the government should consider raising the level of the interlocutor on their side so that there would be prompt responses to her questions.
Q: When you went to Burma last time, Suu Kyi refused to meet you. Why?
A: To be honest with you, I do not know.
What I can say for sure [is that] I have met her seven times now since May 2006 and each time she always emphasized this: the central role the UN is promoting dialogue between her and the government and is bridging an all-inclusive process of national reconciliation.
Secondly, she has often expressed disappointment on the couple of occasions I have been in Myanmar that I have not been received at the highest level of the government. So it was quite a surprise to me and a disappointment, frankly, because each time I have met her, I am able to report her views to the UN.
Since so many things had happened since I last met her in March—the referendum, the cyclone, the constitution—I would have very much liked to hear her views on all these issues and report them faithfully to those who are interested.
And, I do often pass on her views to the authorities and her position to engage in time-bound substantive dialogue.
Q: What is your sense on why she did it?
A: There are all kinds of speculation. One is that she is frustrated. She wanted to show her frustration with her continued detention and her frustration with the slow pace of the political process.
I think she may have had a point.
Q: During your last visit, was the military junta the only channel of communication between you and Suu Kyi?
A: Yes. I tell the government beforehand who I would like to see and they make the arrangements. Often I do not get what I request, unfortunately.
Q: You are very often accused of becoming a prisoner of the government when you go there. You spend most of your time meeting officials and people who support the government, and not the opposition leaders.
A: Well, that is not entirely fair. For example, the last time I met with the NLD central executive committee twice. The second meeting was more than an hour. It was very substantive, very productive. And the statement that came out of the NLD was that they were pleased with the meeting.
I also met with the minister in charge of relations with Aung San Suu Kyi and had a good discussion on how to resume dialogue. I wanted to find out what is really responsible for this break in dialogue, and how it can be revived.
I met, of course, with other representatives of civil society—the Red Cross and the Chamber of Commerce, but it is true that most of the people I met were pro-government.
Q: After your last visit, a number of Burmese people and observers said that your mission has failed—your mission had lost steam. Do you think that’s fair?
A: The [UN] Secretary-General, on whose behalf I act, has come out to say that he does not regard the mission as a failure—that it is a process of consultation, of mediation.
But it is also very clear that we are frustrated that no tangible results are coming out of the process. That is what the people of Myanmar want and that is what the international community expects.
I left five issues in the hands of the government:
First: The release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
Second: The commencement, without delay, of a substantive time-bound dialogue between the government, Aung San Suu Kyi and others.
Third: to create a climate and enhance the credibility of the process [so that] any future election in the country would be more likely be accepted by the people of Myanmar and the international community.
[Fourth] Then we had the issues of a more broad-based social economic discussion in the country through the creation of a national economic forum.
Fifth: how to regularize the engagement of the Good Offices role of the [UN] Secretary-General and the government. It should be regular and routine, including the possibility of stationing a staff or two of mine in Rangoon to prepare for visits and be liaison persons in between visits.
So, we are waiting for the government [to react] to these points on the table.
Incidentally, when I discussed these points with the central executive committee members of the NLD, they appeared to support all except the election.
I must use this opportunity to say one very important point: people criticize the Good Offices role as, in effect, blessing the government's “Road Map.”
I want to clarify that the road map is the government's road map. The opposition has reservations and the international community has its own views.
It was made very clear that we want an all-inclusive national reconciliation process; a dialogue that [would address] the real concerns of the people; the discussion of social economic issues; and how to achieve a democratic, peaceful united and prosperous Myanmar with full respect for the human rights of its people.
Q: Now there seems to be a deadlock. How do you plan to address it?
A: I prefer to use the word “challenges.” One is how to get the government to respond positively to the five points that we raised during our last visit.
The second is how to get Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD back to the political process fully;
The third challenge is how to bridge the gap between some key members of the international community.
Q: How do you propose to address those challenges?
A: First, the [UN] secretary-general convened a meeting of his “Group of Friends on Myanmar” and he chaired the meeting for two hours last Friday. He plans to have another meeting of the Group of Friends at a ministerial level.
The UN can only be effective and strong if the members want it. So, we need the help of those who have influence on all sides, so that these gaps that are mentioned—these three challenges—can be met.
Also, the [UN] secretary-general has indicated that we have to take a deep breath and rethink, reprioritize our strategy and our point of engagement with the authorities. We can't abandon the people of Myanmar.
Third, the [UN] secretary-general has encouraged Indonesia's initiative to have a small group of some countries who are closest neighbors to Myanmar and who have some [experience] of transition from a military to a democratic regime, and to whom the [Burmese] authorities are more likely to listen to, including China and, we hope, India.
Q: Is that going to be at a Head of the State level?
A: No, I don’t think so; but hopefully at a ministerial level. I think it is up to the Indonesians to announce that.
Q: So now, you would like to pause for a couple of months?
A: Not necessarily. A deep breath, as I said.
Q: When are you next going back to Burma?
A: An invitation has been issued to return. The important thing is not to visit for the sake of it. We need to prepare carefully this time, so that some positive response—a tangible response—to those issues which we left on the table [is forthcoming].
Q: But the [UN] secretary-general is planning to go there in December?
A: He has said very clearly that he went to Myanmar twice under exceptional special circumstances.
It was a very successful mission. The authorities relaxed some of the restrictions and they saw the value of the international cooperation.
One of the positive outcomes of that cooperation was that the tripartite core group mechanism—Burma, Asean and the UN—is working well in the case of Cyclone Nargis.
That showed the authorities in Myanmar that the international community brings positive results and shows how the spirit of cooperation with Asean and the UN could be extended to political matters.
But the [UN] secretary-general has made it very clear that he would go to Myanmar provided that tangible results come out through the Good Offices role, including through my activities.
Q: So there are a few pre-conditions for his visit?
A: I do not want to make it a pre-condition. But, as I said, this is what we would like to see.
Q: Including the release of Aung San Suu Kyi?
A: Including responding positively to all the five issues which I have put on their table.
Q: The French ambassador said outside the Security Council that the [UN] secretary-general needs to put more pressure on Burma. Do you agree with that?
A: We want all those who have influence to exercise this influence in tangible ways on the authorities in Myanmar so that this dialogue will resume without any further delay.
Q: Do you think there is any conflict of interest because you are on the board of the U Thant Institute and, as you know, there is not a good chemistry between the U Thant circle and the Aung San dynasty in Burma?
A: First of all, I was not aware of those dynamics when I joined the U Thant board.
The U Thant Institute is an NGO. I joined the international advisory board of this NGO when I was a special advisor to the [UN] secretary-general on Africa. The role U Thant played as UN secretary-general in Africa is not often clearly understood.
That was my motivation for joining the U Thant Foundation and it remains valid. I do not see any conflict of interest. If I did, I would reassess my membership of the NGO.
Q: What is your own view on the 2010 elections?
A: My own view, which is not that of the [UN] secretary-general is that [although] we are mandated under the Good Offices role to extend technical assistance to countries that request them, [we should not wait] until 2010 to create the conditions that would enhance the credibility of the elections.
We want to act now to prevent disunity and divisions later. It is possible therefore that action can be taken—an all-inclusive process, a transparent process, a process that is free and fair and can be implemented between now and 2010.
Q: After your last visit and so much criticism and calls for your resignation, at any point did you think that you would submit your resignation?
A: As a human being, of course you feel discouraged, particularly when somebody's criticism is based on an erroneous report on my position—in this case the road map and the elections.
But it comes with the territory. For example, I have been characterized as too close to the regime. Well, there was a time when the regime thought I was too close to Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD.
As long as I have the confidence of both sides, and as long as the [UN] secretary-general has confidence in me, I am prepared to continue and engage the challenge. But we need help—it is not a personal thing.
Q: Last question. When you go to Burma, what do you eat—Burmese food or something else?
A: Only Burmese food. The people of Myanmar are very good people. They are endowed with very good mineral resources. They used to be a leading country in Asia—their educational system, rice production, agricultural production.
The country produced the first Asian secretary-general. A country like that deserves to move in a direction, which we all want—a peaceful democratic, united country with full respect for the human rights of its people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)