[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Interview with ASSK
This interview with Aung San Suu Kyi was conducted by
Dean Chapman on May 7, 1996.
(Copyright by Dean Chapman; posted on BurmaNet by permission)
DC: How would you describe the current state of the NLD?
ASSK: The NLD [is] operating with great difficulty because when
SLORC realized after my release last year, that the NLD
was still very much a cohesive force, they started trying to
make problems for us. But we've learned to cope with it.
DC: Would you say that party members and sympathizers face
more intimidation now than prior to your "release"?
ASSK: I think they were subjected to a lot of persecution
immediately after the elections and for a year or two
following that, and then things quietened down. Probably
because the authorities thought that by then the NLD was
properly crushed. But now that they've realized we're far
from being crushed . . . they're getting more brutal.
DC: In what way exactly?
ASSK: The authorities are now basically disregarding the law when
dealing with the supporters of the NLD. . . the law, they
hardly give it lip service. . . they will arrest somebody and
they will try him under some section of the law, but any
section they like.
DC: So they have a compliant judiciary now?
ASSK: Oh, totally compliant. I sometimes wonder whether one can
apply the term judiciary.
DC: How many NLD members are now being held for their
political beliefs?
ASSK: I'm afraid I can't give you the precise number. . . [It's]
something that we have to guess at because the government
does not admit to having political prisoners, and they make
it very difficult for us to find out exactly how many, but we
assume that there are political prisoners in four figures,
probably between one and two thousand, but not all of them
are NLD. There are non - NLD political prisoners as well.
DC: Do you think that it's now dawning on the SLORC that,
should they complete the National Convention, they would
have to hold fresh elections and that this is another reason
why they're stalling?
ASSK: I do not think so. I really can't say what SLORC is
thinking. They don't consult me. I think it is just that the
National Convention has not gone the way that they thought
it would. That is why they're having difficulties bringing it
to a conclusion.
DC: It has been six years since the last elections. Some people
are thinking that the time is coming when there should be
new elections.
ASSK: Well, I do not think that there is any point in having new
elections until they've resolved the problem of the old
elections, and, moreover, I would not trust any election held
under the authority of SLORC. Since they have had this
experience of 1990, I do not think that they will go in for
free and fair elections again.
DC: So which authority would you be willing to participate
under?
ASSK: It would have to be a democratic monitor.
DC: Which constitution would you hold as legal and binding?
ASSK: A constitution that is drawn up by a genuine National
Assembly made up of representatives of the people.
DC: So there has to be a new constitution?
ASSK: Yes, I think there has to be a new constitution, but not the
one that is being drawn up by SLORC.
DC: In your speech last Saturday (4 May) you were talking
about Khun Sa and the fact that he could talk with the
SLORC and make a deal, and yet the NLD is completely
snubbed. Could you clarify your position?
ASSK: I was just responding to a letter which had come up saying
that at one time SLORC said that Khun Sa was a drug
dealer and that they would never, never, never, never have
any dealings with him. He would simply be treated as a
drug runner and would be crushed and annihilated. And
here they are on very good terms with Khun Sa, and there
are rumors flying around that he even has a house
somewhere along here ... Living very comfortably. The
letter that came up was signed by somebody who said that
he was a member of the armed forces . He said that "we
were made to fight Khun Sa and now look at what's
happened." So I was just saying that looking at it from one
side, this is very bad because one expects a government to
honor its word, and one does not expect a government to
collaborate with drug runners. But on the other hand, I said
it's not so bad because if they can even talk with somebody
they declared a drug runner with whom they would never
have any dealing, it may establish the possibility that they
will also have to change their tune about never talking to
the NLD. And I just pointed out that we have never harmed
the people of Burma, nor have we ever killed a single
member of the armed forces, as Khun Sa and his troops
have. If they can come to some agreement with Khun Sa,
then there are many, many more reasons why they should
be able to come to some agreement with us.
DC: Have they given any indication that they'd like to talk to
you?
ASSK: I do not think that they have any intention of opening the
kind of dialogue we have in mind, which would have to be
substantive political dialogue. I think they now know that
the kind of dialogue they had in mind is not possible. I've
been asked by some people whether I was not disappointed
because SLORC obviously does not have any intention of
starting a dialogue with us. I reply no, because I think what
they have now recognized is that the kind of dialogue we
have in mind will not be possible. So when they finally
come around, as they inevitably will have to, to the idea of
dialogue to solve the problem of the country, they will
understand that there has to be substantive political
dialogue.
DC: If there is no dialogue in the impending future, what action
is open to the NLD?
ASSK: We are a political movement, not simply a political party,
and as with other political movements we continue with our
work. We want dialogue, and we think that in the end,
eventually there will have to be dialogue. That's the only
way through which such situations are resolved, but that
does not mean we're just going to sit and wait for a
dialogue to drop down into our laps. We continue with our
programs. Obviously, we don't talk about our future
planning.
DC: How do you view the civil disobedience that's been
happening in Bangladesh, and is bringing about change
there?
ASSK: Well, they, of course, have a democratic government in
place. Perhaps democracy was not a hundred per cent in
situ but certainly it was a democratic government and the
opposition with the support of enough people to make its
movement effective brought about the change that they
wanted. This is what happens obviously in democracies,
and this is what should be allowed to happen in every
country where the willof the people is respected.
DC: In your speeches you've been describing Nelson Mandela's
transformation from prisoner to president. . .
ASSK: Actually, I haven't got anywhere near there yet I just
started reading about Nelson Mandela last week, so I've
only got to the time when he was in Fort Hare.
DC: But I was thinking about the part played by the ANC and
that they had a very strong military wing.
ASSK: Yes. Of course, the South African situation was in some
ways very much worse than the situation in Burma. Also in
some ways it was better. When you consider the state of the
black townships in South Africa and the volume and the
hatred and the brutalization of the young people, it was far
worse than anything that is going on in Burma. But on the
other hand, when you consider the white government of
South Africa, although their policy of apartheid was not
quite human, yet they amongst themselves did practice
democracy. The whites had their own democracy and
democratically elected government, so they had an
understanding of the working of democracy. That was a
plus for South Africa, which we, of course, do not have.
What we have is a military dictatorship that has no inkling
of the workings of democratic process.
DC: Do you think that Burma could become the pariah state that
South Africa was in the eighties?
ASSK: There is a movement towards that now, I think from the
United States and probably spreading out. The South
African government practicing apartheid was seen as a
government that was totally against the dictates of justice of
the law and I think people are beginning to see the
government of Burma in the same light. As a government
that has no understanding of the basic concepts of justice
and humanity.
DC: Is there a De Klerk figure in Burma who has the vision and
the authority to bring about change?
ASSK: Not that we are aware of. At the moment we can't see
anybody who can be compared to De Klerk. At one time
De Klerk himself was a tremendous hard liner and nobody
would have imagined that he would become the bridge to
have shown the way for blacks and whites to meet.
DC: In Burma itself the NLD and other people who yearn for
democracy can only do so much. Do you think the
international community could be doing more?
ASSK: Of course. I think everybody could be doing more, even the
people in Burma. I do not believe in dependency. I think
people should be self - reliant, so I always try to urge our
people to try harder for the changes that they want. They
should not rely on others. We ask for, we work for, and we
welcome the help and support of the international
community. That is only as it should be. We do not intend
to live as an isolated nation. Even if we wanted to, we
could not in this day and age, so we very much appreciate
the support of the international community, and we'd like
the international community to do more. We are not
putting the responsibility of bringing democracy to Burma
on the international community. The main responsibility is
ours, but we would like to have the international
community soundly behind us.
DC: Do you think the UN should declare Burma's seat vacant
and withdraw it from the SLORC?
ASSK: The NLD has not gone as far as considering that question,
but we take these things a step at a time, so let's see how
things go.
DC: The SLORC perceives the investments that are coming in to
Burma as examples of progress towards establishing a
modern developed nation. This would appear to be nothing
more than image making.
ASSK: Yes, of course, they do not understand what development
really means. We like to think of development in terms of
development as defined by the UN. It has to be more than
just economic growth. In Burma even the economic
growth is not as impressive as all that if you have the
correct figures.
DC: So you're talking of development tha would benefit the
people?
ASSK: It's got to be development that comprises progress on a
social and a political front as well as the economic front.
DC: Is a privileged class now forming in Burma?
ASSK: Yes, well, what is going on in Burma is cronyism, the kind
of cronyism that flourished in the Philippines under Marcos.
When a few people connected to the powers that be got
extremely wealthy while the rest of the country got poorer
and poorer.
DC: Many of the infrastructure projects now in Burma are being
built with forced labor, especially children, building roads
and railway embankments. The major benefactors of these
are the army, foreign investors, and tourists. What's your
opinion on this?
ASSK: There's no way you can make forced labor right. The
government tries to justify this by saying that is's not forced
labor -- it's volunteer labor and this is part of Burmese
tradition. It is part of Burmese tradition to a certain extent
in that Burmese kings in the past used forced labor, but it
was never voluntarily accepted by the people. The people
had no choice because the kings were also dictators. And
now, too, we have no choice. I do not buy this kind of
agument ... because there used to be slavery in the past, we
should go on having slavery because that's part of our
tradition.
DC: Do you think that "Visit Myanmar Year 1996" could turn
out to be a farce?
ASSK: I think it'll probably turn out to be a flop.
DC: Instead of pursuing their own self enjoyment, should
tourists be avoiding coming to Burma?
ASSK: We'd like everyone to boycott "Visit Myanmar Year." I'm
not saying that they should not come to Burma, but we
would like them to avoid "Visit Myanmar Year" as a clear
demonstration of solidarity with the movement of
democracy.
DC: Because Burma is basically going to be the same now as . . .
ASSK: It'll be better after democracy.
DC: There are rumors now circulating that the World Bank and
the IMF are about to resume issuing loans to Burma to the
SLORC.
ASSK: I think they're just rumors.
DC: What of the Japanese Government possibly resuming large -
scale ODA?
ASSK: We are not in favor of any government or international
organization resuming aid at this moment because we do
not think that it will help substantially towards the
development of Burma. All it will do is to shore up the
power of the military.
DC: Certain insurgent groups have signed cease-fires or have
come to terms with the SLORC. What are your thoughts on
this?
ASSK: I think cease - fires are a good thing because it does mean
fewer people get killed and maimed, but cease - fires are not
permanent peace agreements.
DC: And there has to be a political debate?
ASSK: Of course. Unless there is a political settlement of some
kind there will never be a permanent peace.
DC: What form of autonomy do you envisage for the
nationalities in the future, should democracy come?
ASSK: It is something that will have to be decided through a
genuine National Convention in which all the ethnic
nationalities will be represented. It is not for us to say this
is the form of nation that we want to impose on all the
nationalities. So all the nationalities can get together and
decide . . . the kind of nation that we want, which will
remain united and strong.
DC: What of the independence movements, such as the Karenni,
who still hold out for their dream of an independent nation?
ASSK: I think one should talk to them and so should listen to their
views and try to understand why they want what they want.
DC: How do you view the Union Solidarity and Development
Association after what happened outside of your house on
New Year's Day (14 April, 1996)?
ASSK: They're merely an arm of SLORC, and now it's becoming
increasingly clear that it is a rather reprehensible arm. It
reminds me increasingly of Hitler's brownshirts. On New
Year's Day they were told to go and beat up the NLD
should the NLD try to go ahead with the fish-releasing
ceremony. They're obviously no better than a gang of
hooligans.
DC: Regardless of the current economic development, it seems
that the majority of the Burmese people are having
problems with inflation.
ASSK: Inflation is terrible. At the moment what is really
frightening is the price of rice which is so high. This is the
time of year when the price of rice should be at its lowest.
But it's higher than it has ever been, and it's going to go
higher and higher. It's really worrying.
DC: What of the educated people in Burma who cannot find
employment, or who wish to leave the country to better
themselves and their opportunities?
ASSK: It's inevitable in a nation where the government does not
respect education and is afraid of freedom of thought and
expression. Educated people have no role to play, no proper
role to play. If you are somebody who truly desires
knowledge and truly desires using your education, you are
forced to go abroad. At the same time, the standard of
education in Burma has fallen so low that one hesitates to
call some people educated even when they gain their
university degree.
DC: What is your opinion on the increasing militarization of
Burma, and of how it's becoming too much of a burden on
the people to bear?
ASSK: It is very much a burden on the people. It is very foolish,
and I think that it is something the region should think
about and be concerned about. What are these people
gathering arms for? We keep hearing rumors. Burma is a
land of rumors. Where there's oppression there are always
rumors. We hear rumors that SLORC thinks there's going
to be war with Thailand or that America is going to invade.
You know, very, very peculiar notions. But I think they're
gathering arms in order to crush their own people.
DC: What do you think of the army recruiting boys as young as
fourteen?
ASSK: It's disgraceful. I hear that some of them are not even
fourteen. I heard recently that some as young as twelve
were recruited.
DC: When I visited Meikthila recently to the Burma - Japan
World Peace Pagoda, I saw armed soldiers posted for
security reasons on the steps of the pagoda. I've also seen
this in Mandalay.
ASSK: That gives you a very good idea of the unhappy state we are
in when soldiers with guns are found in pagodas, and then
claim to have achieved law and order. They claim to have
achieved stability and peace within the country. How can
they claim that, when they have to post soldiers with guns
on the steps of pagodas?
DC: What do you think the activists overseas should be doing?
ASSK: We think 1996 is a crucial year, and because it is a crucial
year, I think they should try their best to work unitedly
towards a common goal, which would involve keeping
investment out of Burma, keeping trade and business out of
Burma and making the international community aware of
the facts. Development and economic progress can never
come to this country unless there is political change.