WE HAVE COMPROMISED (Cont.)
If an NLD government came in, would it broadly follow a market economy?
"Yes, we have actually brought out a couple of papers of our economic policy, but people never read them. Then they ask what is our economic policy. They say: don't you have an economic program? When in fact we have brought out a number of papers on this and most foreign correspondents don't read them. And then they ask us what our economic program is."
You continue to believe that economic sanctions against your country are a good thing?
"I think sanctions are effective. The government says two things. Sometimes they say that sanctions have no effect whatsoever so they don't care about them - in which case, why are they making a fuss. And then sometimes they say that sanctions are hurting the ordinary people in Burma. But when they say that the sanctions are hurting the ordinary people of Burma, then that does not sound good either because that's tantamount to saying that they are different from the ordinary people and that their life is quite different. So either way you look at it, the regime's approach toward sanctions is inconsistent and not very uplifting. But we think that sanctions have been effective, because as the United States is such a strong economic power, then when sanctions came in, potential investors started looking into the situation very carefully. And then they found that there were many things that they didn't like about the business practices and the invesment laws of Burma. And that is why they backed off. Not simply because the U.S. brought in sanctions."
There are those who say that sanctions are a bankrupt policy, that they've never really worked and that all they are doing is bringing hardship to the people of your country?
"Well, they are not causing hardship to the people of the country. That we can say. So to people like that, I would just say that: prove it, prove that sanctions are hurting the people of the country. And they can't really prove it. The US sanctions are not such that they in any way effect the Burmese economy as it is to a great extent. The ones who are hurt are the ones who are right at the top, who were thinking of having dealings with American firms. Because the sanctions didn't get rid of all investments; it was just that no new investments could come in. So, whom does that hurt? Only those who were planning to work with American companies. And how would that help the ordinary people? I just don't know how they argue that it hurts the ordinary people."
But they might argue that if there were no sanctions then there might be investment in infrastructure projects that might alleviate the power shortage and other things that make life so difficult for ordinary people.
"But what is the proof that any American firm was thinking of doing that kind of infrastructure work anyway? There is no proof of any kind. There were some individuals who had plans to go into business with American firms, but not on things like that. It was for their own personal profit. And I suppose sanctions have hurt people like that. But not the ordinary people of Burma."
You disagree with those in ASEAN who continue to invest in your country?
"I think a lot of people are losing. A lot of the ASEAN investments here are not doing well at all. If you look at the hotels you would get a good idea of how badly they are. How big a percentage of their rooms are full?"
I think you said once that the ASEAN economic crisis was helping your cause, is that a correct interpretation?
"I don't know whether I said it was helping us as such, but I think I may have said the ASEAN economic crisis made the problems of Burma much more evident to others. Because they were not able to help Burma, they were so busy with their own problems. And then the economic incompetence of this regime became more obvious, with nobody to bale them out."
In that earlier statement of Khin Nyunt's at the ASEAN meeting here, he also spoke of the government bringing peace and stability. People say that a major achievement of the regime has been to settle the ethnic insurgencies. Do you agree?
"They have had the ceasefire agreements, but they are still ceasefire agreements. They don't seem to have come to any longterm political solution. Because the ceasefire groups are still holding onto their arms. And that in itself creates an element of instability, because members of the ceasefire groups can just go into the big cities of Burma with revolvers at their hips. And it is illegal for ordinary Burmese citizens to go around with a lethal weapon. But members of the ceasefire groups, I suppose the officials, can be seen around with their guns."
So would you say that the regime has achieved a halfway step in bringing stability and curbing the ethnic fighting?
"They've got the halfway step, yes. But I don't know about stability. If they are so confident of the stability of this country, why haven't they reopened the universities?"
They may regard that as a different issue from dealing with the border insurgencies.
"Well, it's all to do with stability, isn't it. You can't say it's a different issue."
There are worries, especially in the regime, but also outside, that if you come to power the country will be plunged into a Yugoslavia or Indonesia type situation, with ethnic fighting flaring up all over the place.
"I don't buy that at all. It's such a silly idea that I don't really even think it's worth discussing in great detail. But if you must go into the Yugoslavia problem, the animosities, the hostilities, between the various racial groups in Yugoslavia go back to the 12th century."
Do they not go back just as far here between the different ethnic groups? - the Shan, Wa, Mon, Arakans and so on?
"Not quite in the same way. The Wa is a new element. We've had wars between the Mons and the Burmese, and between the Arakanese and the Burmese. Not so much with the Shans, although there have been squirmishes with individual Shan chieftans, Shan rulers. But the kind of problems that existed in Yugoslavia, I think were exacerbated by the years of totalitarian rule. When people were not allowed to work out their differences through a pluralistic political system. And the tradition of settling their differences through violence was never really removed. It hasn't been removed in Burma either. Because the regime itself is trying to resolve problems through violence. Putting people in prison is violence. Killing people is violence. They are still using violent means to resolve problems, and violence never really resolved problems. It may keep them under control to a certain extent. So I don't think that their methods are going to bring about permanent peace."
But people still fear that if there were an NLD-led government tomorrow there would be a holocaust.
"Well, if you look back to what Burma was like after independence, I don't think you can say that. The first Karen insurgencies of course started the moment Burma became independent, because some groups did not accept the Burmese government, or rather a government dominated by Burmese. But in those days under parliamentary democracy, yes there were insurgencies which were really a legacy of the war. There were Communist insurgencies, and there were a few ethnic insurgencies, but the number of ethnic insurgencies really increased dramatically under the BSPP. So you cannot really say that it was democracy that led to all these ethnic dissatisfactions."
You believe it might be the dictatorial nature of the regime, the repression, that caused that?
"Yes, because people were not allowed to express their dissatisfaction through acceptable political channels. The only way they could express their dissatisfaction was by taking up arms."
There are people in countries that border Myanmar, certainly in Thailand, who worry about what will happen if you come to power, whether they will have fighting all along their border.
"I think they should worry about their own country. We'll worry about ours."
But you acknowledge that the regime has come halfway to bringing some measure of stability?
"I won't say stability. I think stability is a different issue. But I think we will say that they have come halfway to bringing an end to armed ethnic insurgencies."
I drove to Mawlamyine last weekend and passed over two new bridges. The road is greatly improved, you can drive all the way there without needing to take a ferry any more. Has the regime also done some good in this regard?
"But isn't putting up bridges and building roads the job of any government? If you are going to talk like that then we'll have to start making a list of all the bridges and the roads and the railways lines that were put up by the colonial government. If you are going to say that good government is one which builds bridges and puts down roads and railways, then we'd have to favor the colonial government as a very good government. But I doubt that the regime would accept such a definition. So, all right, they have put up bridges, there is nothing wrong with it, and bridges are a good thing - if they are built strongly and won't fall down under the weight of too many cars; but this is just normal work that any government would be expected to do and I would not think that this is a justification for a military regime to keep clinging to power."
Members of the regime often say that you may disagree with much of what we do, but there is never any acknowledgement of the good things we do.
"Well, wouldn't you have thought that the ASEAN countries acknowledge it more than enough? To make up for whoever it is who do not. A lot of the ASEAN countries talk about the ceasefire agreements, and they also talk about the so-called economic boom - but they've stopped talking about that now, although two or three years ago they were talking about the hotels, the cars and the roads and so on. So what does the regime mean by saying nobody talks about it? People talked about it a lot. But they've stopped talking about it, because you can't go on talking about the hotels when the hotels are empty. And you can't go on talking about the roads when the roads are empty of the expected new traffic. You can't go on talking about them again and again. How often do we expect people to go on talking about bridges and roads and hotels?"
But they feel that it would be nice if the West, which has led the move to sanctions and pretty relentlessly criticizes them, would occasionally acknowledge that they have done something that benefitted the people. It might be a gesture that might bring a response.
"The West would be least inclined to be impressed by hotels and roads and bridges."
Why? This is more than a lot of developing countries do.
"I don't think the West would be impressed by hotels. The tourists might be pleased with them. Bridges, yes. I'm not sure that bridges are really considered that impressive any more."
The regime feels that this begrudging attitude towards them makes them feel that if they do something positive, if they move towards you in a conciliatory gesture or whatever, that all they will get is to be ignored or rebuffed.
"But what sort of gesture have they ever made?"
They spoke to some of your people two or three years ago, they allowed you to have your Congress last year, but each time they do this the ante is raised and they are expected to do something else.
"Oh, no, when we were allowed to have the Congress, we were very very loud with our words of appreciation. Yes, we said we appreciated the fact that we were able to hold the Congress. So it's not true. Every time they made a gesture we acknowledged it - but to the degree of the importance of the gesture. Not more than that. But it didn't mean that after acknowledging the gesture then we sat back and did nothing. Because we went ahead with our work. But we certainly said that we appreciated it very much. I said it myself so I should know."
The ASEAN policy of constructive engagement is one which you feel is not really succeeding?
"It hasn't succeeded. What has it done? When ASEAN was considering Burma as a permanent member a couple of years ago, we made two points. One was that admitting Burma as a member would make the regime more repressive, because they would think that their policies have been endorsed. They would see it as a seal of approval. Or, at least, if it was not a seal of approval it was a sign that the ASEAN countries didn't mind about the human rights record of the military regime. And the second thing we said was that Burma under this military regime was not going to be an asset to the organization. And I think we can claim that both these views have been vindicated."
They are more repressive since joining ASEAN?
"Oh, they have got much much more repressive since they became a full member of ASEAN. And I don't think that really Burma is much of a credit to ASEAN these days. It's not exactly a shining example for them."
The US espouses constructive engagement on China but not on Myanmar. This inconsistency puzzles many people, even Western diplomats. How do you explain it?
"I think the situation in China is different. And surprising as it may sound to some people, we think that Chinese dissidents have a much better deal than we have. In China, even when I was under house arrest, I would listen to the radio and I would be surprised by the fact that families of dissidents could talk to foreign correspondents and express their concern about their husbands and fathers and they would not be arrested. They would have these interviews quite freely. And I think the Chinese are quite sensible about give and take as regards dissidents. And with give and take with the Western democracies. The military regime here is far more intransigent and that's why I think one can say that constructive engagement with China bears more results than constructive engagement with Burma. I don't see any sort of give and take with regards to human rights taking place here - either between Burma and the Western democracies, or between Burma and the ASEAN countries."
Has there been any give on the other side?
"Yes. But no give on the side of the regime. This is what we say ad nauseum as well, that the regime does not want give and take, but they take all and we give all. But that's not what you mean by give and take. It's meant to be a bit of both on both sides."
Talking about how they treat you, Dr Mathahir once said it's not as if you are being strung up.
"Well, that's right. Again that's his personal opinion. And it's not one with which we agree."
If you came to power you would not feel uncomfortable with such ASEAN leaders?
"No, you don't. Politics is not like that."
You feel the US is giving you adequate support?
"Yes, I think they support us very very staunchly. And so do other democracies, particularly the Scandinavian countries. And the EU."
The regime worries that if you come to power you might seek retribution of some sort.
"We have always said that we are not interested in vengeance. That's our official policy."
Your principle goal is the welfare of the people, not yourself or your party?
"Well, the welfare of the people, yes. I mean, what I need for my own welfare I'd be better off not doing politics. If I were just concerned for my own welfare."
If your principle interest is the people of your country, why don't you step aside and let someone else deal with representatives of the government in a dialogue - given that the regime says it will talk to anyone in your party but you.
"But that's just an excuse. They have made a lot of misleading statements about dialogue. And they have shown a lack of sincerity with regard to dialogue."
You feel that even if you agreed to this they would not engage in substantive dialogue?
"No, no. They are not engaging in dialogue because they don't want to, because they don't want to give up power. It's not because there's any real reason for not engaging in dialogue."
Why not give it another try and say you will send someone else?
"We have said that we would agree to lower level negotiations which would not involve me."
You have?
"Yes. Actually, we agreed to that in 1997 when it was put to us through a third party. And when we agreed, they didn't come back on it, so we knew that they were not sincere. It's just an excuse. They are always coming up with new excuses."
But your party has put out statements saying that the regime should not demand that you not be present, that they choose their representatives to dialogue and you choose yours.
"Right, that's true. Of course, we've always said that what we want is genuine political dialogue not a dictated set showpiece."
But your choice is that you should represent your party?
"We have not said who we are going to choose. But we said we'll choose our own representatives. They can't dictate to us. Then will they let us dictate to them whom they choose as their representatives? How would you call it genuine political dialogue if each side does not have the right to determine its own representatives. If one side is going to dictate terms under which the other side participates in the negotiations that's not really negotiations at all."
What is wrong with taking that step?
"What step? That we allow them to decide on the representatives from our side?
Yes, if it's for the good of the people, if it might resolve the impasse.
"Well, how would you call this in terms of equality?
It's not equal, but does it matter if it gets the process moving? "But then that's not genuine political dialogue. And would you not say that what we need is genuine political dialogue?"
Of course, but they may be genuine - it's just that they don't like dealing with you.
"Well, if they didn't like dealing with me, why didn't they have a dialogue with our party chairman U Aung Shwe when I was under house arrest for six years and he asked for it so many times over and over again. It was after I was released from house arrest they brought out this excuse that they didn't want to talk to me, that's why they were not having negotiations. But when I was under house arrest, U Aung Shwe actually asked to talk to them and at one point he was not even asking them for broad political negotiations, he was simply asking to discuss with them the working procedures of the National Convention - because it was so undemocratic. And they refused to talk to him. So if what they wanted was dialogue without me, they had six years in which to do it."
