'WE HAVE COMPROMISED' (Cont.)
Okay but that's the past, now you say you would be agreeable to a dialogue process starting that did not include you but rather other members of your party?
"They didn't talk about dialogue without me at all then, it was only after I was released that they said that the reason why they couldn't have dialogue with the NLD was because they didn't want to talk to me. So it's an obvious excuse.
But whatever happened in the past, let me get it right: you are agreeable to lower level talks that do not include you?
"We have said we were agreeable. We have said that in 1997. And then they pretended that they had heard nothing about it."
That means their only other objection to talks is this committee that you set up representing parliament. They want you to rescind this parliamentary committee.
"We are not going to rescind it, because that's blackmail. They've taken our people into detention, and then they say that if you dissolve this committee then we'll release them. That's blackmail. And we are not going to fall for it. And if you read our paper you will know exactly why we don't believe that they will really move towards dialogue simply because we give into some of their demands. They are always coming up with some new excuse or the other."
So you are not agreeable to rescinding the parliamentary committee?
"No. Not until parliament has been convened. We said that if you want to rescind the committee, it's very easy: convene parliament. Because we have made it quite clear that this committee stays only until parliament is convened."
Politics is the art of the possible. You seem to be holding out for the impossible.
"Why? What are we holding out for that is impossible?
Parliament for a start. They are not going to give it to you.
"Well, that's what they say. In how many countries have military regimes absolutely insisted that they were not going to give in and they had to give in anyway. So what's so impossible about asking for change?"
In practical terms there are very few people who feel that you are going to get this.
"Well, why?"
You know them yourself, you know they are not going to do this.
"Well, haven't there been regimes just as bad, just as obdurate, and actually far more efficient, but in the end they had to agree to change. And this is what surprises me when people say: how can you expect change? As if the world has not been changing and is not changing all the time. It is all the time and people keep on being surprised because we expect change.
The regime is not going to give in on this and you won't rescind the committee. Everybody is in an entrenched position: you, the regime and Western governments. Nobody is willing to move out of their positions. And the ones who lose out and suffer are the people of Myanmar.
"Now that's not fair. You've just said to me: would we agree to lower level dialogue? And I said: yes, we agree to that. So that shows that we were not entrenched. But they were entrenched. I mean, there have been other cases like that when we have said, yes, we are prepared to be flexible. And they have not been prepared to be flexible. So you cannot say that we have been in an entrenched position."
That is the feeling though, that you are all entrenched.
"It may be a feeling, but that is because people have not studied the situation carefully enough."
Some even start to think that you are all content with the status quo, the impasse.
"No, nobody is happy with the status quo. If people were happy with the status quo they would not try to change it. It's because we are not happy with the status quo that we are trying to change it."
There is certainly a degree of cynicism building up, that nothing is moving.
"Well, I don't know where that cynicism is building up. But it's certainly not with us."
It is just very sad for an outsider coming in, asking the same questions, getting the same answers from all sides.
"Yes, for a journalist it's boring, the same answers. It's not a new story. But it doesn't mean that because you get the same answers, that that's the end of the world. In some countries I think you get the same answers for decades."
In an interview early last year you were reported as saying: The NLD is prepared to consider all options including power sharing with the ruling military junta.
"I think they misquoted me. We just said that we didn't rule out anything. We are prepared to discuss anything on the negotiation table."
So you don't rule out power sharing?
"No. We say we don't rule out anything before negotiations. After all, that's what negotiations are for. To find out what one can accept."
You are regarded as inflexible by the regime, and increasingly by people within Myanmar. Even NLD-friendly diplomats feel you have been too inflexible.
"Inflexible in what way?"
Not willing to compromise and be more conciliatory.
"Well, we have compromised. Now we can keep coming back to this business of dialogue. We have compromised a great deal, and suggested all the different ways in which we could start dialogues so that they don't need to lose face and they can just start it going. But they wouldn't accept any of these compromises."
Obviously you feel that this is an unfair characterisation.
"I don't think of it as fair or unfair. I think it is inevitable in such situations. Because if you stand up to a military regime and stick to our guns, you are accused of being inflexible. You have to try to make a distinction between standing up for certain basic principles, and between inflexibility. If you are to be considered flexible only if you give up all the basic democratic principles which we are fighting for, then why would we be doing with this movement at all?"
The military regime is implacably opposed to having you as the leader of the country.
"It's not their business. It's really not their business. I mean, neither the NLD nor I have ever said that our aim is to make me the leader of this country. And in any case, that is a question for the people of Burma to decide, not for the military."
I think most people assume that if the NLD takes over, you would be the leader, and to be fair I think this is the assumption of most of the world.
"Well, they can make their own assumptions. They are free to do so. We believe in the freedom of belief and thought."
You are saying that if an NLD government comes about you will not necessarily be its leader?
"No, not necessarily. I mean, where is there a rule of law that I must become the leader of this country when the NLD comes to power? I mean, there isn't any."
To be realistic you are equated with the party, you are the figurehead of the party. This is reality.
"Yes. This is reality. But that doesn't mean that just because I am equated with the party I will necessarily become the leader of Burma when the NLD comes to power. I may or I may not. There are many imponderables in politics."
People say you are a crusader not a politician.
"A crusader? Well, that's a very romantic way of looking at it. If you consider the things that we have to do every day at the NLD office, I think they would realize that we are very much down to earth politicians. We just have no time to be crusaders."
At the present time, your own party is becoming riven with defections and members are splitting away of their own volition.
"I don't think the expression riven with defections is quite right. We have had a few people leave - but they are working with the authorities and we can declare this with a clear conscience and very definitely. Apart from anything else this has been proven by the fact that an article came out in the government media supporting them. And that only happens to people who are working with the authorities. That's not very new either. And not very surprising either. Because not everybody has the staying power under the circumstances."
You think that is being fair to these people who have split? I'm sure that if someone sincerely decided that for whatever reason they wanted to break with you and they did, then the government press would still write about them.
"Well, they didn't break with us. What they did, what they were saying is that they were just trying to put suggestions to us as loyal members of the party. Now if you want to put suggestions to the NLD as loyal members, you don't send one copy of your statement to General Khin Nyunt as well. Their suggestions were addressed to U Aung Shwe and to Khin Nyunt. Now this is not the action of loyal party members wanting to, you know, make a suggestion."
They say as loyal citizens of the country they were addressing both sides of the impasse to try to seek a resolution.
"That is not what they said. They said they were loyal members of the party. They were simply putting up suggestions. That was what was said in their letter."
Is that true?
"Yes. In the letter written by a couple of them."
I have the letter here, as you say it is addressed to the NLD chairman U Aung Shwe and to Gen. Khin Nyunt.
"Exactly, now if you are acting as a loyal member of the party, what is the need to write to Secretary-1 as well?"
To try to break this impasse however you can. They say they just wrote the letter to try to get the two sides together, to get a dialogue going.
"Well, but they were giving suggestions to us. They were not saying to the SPDC that they should be less repressive. They were not suggesting to Khin Nyunt that they should treat the party in a fairer way. So this in itself indicates that this paper, this letter, is not balanced. If they were really thinking of the welfare of the country, then it's got to be a balanced approach. They could say to the NLD: well, you could be more flexible in such matters, and they must also say to the SPDC that you will have to be less repressive, you will have to stop throwing our people into prison, and torturing them and intimidating them."
I spoke to these three men who were behind the letter, the NLD men - Than Tun, Tin Tun Maung and Kyi Win. You regard them as basically traitors to the party for speaking out in this way?
"We expelled Than Tun from the party two years ago, because he was trying to create factions within the party. And U Tin Tun Maung and U Kyi Win were also close to U Than Tun even then. But since they were not the guiding force at that time, we did not take action against them."
Tin Tun Maung sounds reasonably persuasive and appeared sincere and not to have had his arm twisted by the regime into doing this.
"Well, of course, he would seem to be sincere."
And they did get the signatures of 25 NLD MP-elects at one point to sign this letter.
"Yes, but I think a lot of them have withdrawn their signatures."
Does this episode not indicate a latent feeling within the party that perhaps you should change your tack?
"No, no. Because what they are suggesting, at least as I understand from that press conference they gave where they were asked what their grand plan was because they said they had a plan to move things forward. And they answered that it was lower level talks. But that is so old hat for us, because as I say this was taken off in 1997 and put to one side. So what's the grand plan? It becomes nothing. Just lower level talks. And the SPDC had already indicated towards the end of 1997 that they were not interested in lower level talks."
People complain of your imperious manner. That you do not brook any dissent against your views within the party.
"Well, when U Than Tun brought out his paper two years ago, we actually had a very very thorough discussion with him. We invited him to discuss it with us - with the whole Executive Committee not just me. And if we brooked no dissent we would have kicked him out straight away. But we didn't. And we discussed the matter very thoroughly. And they were allowed full opportunity to express their views. And they were not able to come up with any justification for what they were doing, and they still went on trying to create factions within the party. So we took action against them under the disciplinary committee of the party. We do have rules in the party."
Might they form a 'third force' with other disaffected party members?
"No, I'm not worried in the least bit. Somebody asked me whether I was worried that they might form a political party. I said I would be very happy if they formed a political party. Because that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were working with the authorities. Because only then would they be allowed to form a new political party."
New political parties are not allowed now?
"No, there are no political parties coming into existence at this moment. And what is also very telling is that they were given full facilities to go all over Burma to try to persuade other MPs to join them. And the great majority of our MPs are under virtual house arrest. Certainly they are not allowed out of town."
Bottomline: is the NLD disintegrating?
"No, no. Only people like that. I don't like to mention names, but some of this present lot were already wavering in 1996 when they were first placed under detention. It was enough to scare them. The first time we tried to hold a congress in May 1996, when all our MPs were taken in, some of those who signed this letter resigned as MPs then. And there were others who almost resigned then, but then they were encouraged to stay on. They were just nervous, they couldn't stand up to the pressure."
How do you feel about these people in the party who crack under the pressure?
"I don't particularly feel anything against those who crack under pressure, because it is difficult. And I think there are times when people are at a low ebb, their spirits are at a low ebb, and they feel they can't get on anymore. But what I don't like is the way in which they try to justify the fact that they cannot go on anymore in terms of their concern over the welfare of the people etc etc. I think I would respect them much more if they simply said, as some have said, we really can't take it any more. You know, we just want a bit of peace and quiet."
You lost your former party vice president and key adviser U Kyi Maung some time ago. "Yes, he has effectively retired I should say."
I saw him yesterday morning, he feels that people like this should be allowed to dissent.
"To dissent?"
To express dissenting views from the party's mainline.
"Of course, they can express dissenting views. As I said, they can express dissenting views through the right channels, in the right way. But expressing dissenting views is quite different from writing to Khin Nyunt."
Some say you lost your key adviser when you lost U Kyi Maung. And that as a result you have never been as clear in your political thinking since then.
"No. U Kyi Maung was not my key adviser. He worked in a group together before with U Aung Shwe and VP U Tin U. They and U Kyi Maung were all in the army at one time. So they were one group as it were. And then of course there is the rest of the EC as well."
