LEADERSHIP THROUGH COMPASSION AND U

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: LEADERSHIP THROUGH COMPASSION AND UNDERSATNDING

Dear BurmaWatchers,
      

 Leadership through compassion and understanding 
Journal of Management Inquiry; Thousand Oaks; Dec 1998; Judith A White; 

Volume: 
                     7
Issue: 
                     4
Start Page: 
                     286
ISSN: 
                     10564926
Full Text:
Copyright Sage Publications, Inc. Dec 1998


Truth is a powerful weapon. People may not think so but it is very powerful.
And truth-like anything that is
powerful- can be frightening or reassuring, depending on which side you are
on. If you're on the side of truth,
it's very reassuring-you have its protection. But if you're on the side of
untruth-then it's very frightening. 

-Aung San Suu Kyi (Clements, 1997, p. 51) 

I became interested in Aung San Suu Kyi, the recipient of the 1991 Nobel
Prize for Peace, a few years ago
when I began to study the common elements of the feminist ethic of care and
Buddhist ethics of compassion
in the context of individual and organizational ethical conduct. Aung San
Suu Kyi, a woman, Buddhist, and
Burma's leader of the democracy movement, uses insight, understanding,
nonviolence, and compassion to
bring change to a country controlled by a repressive and violent military
regime. Her person and actions
captured my moral imagination, and I wanted to meet her. 

Burma, which is called Myanmar by the ruling military dictatorship, has a
population of 49 million people, with
average annual per capita income between $200 and $300 according to the U.S.
State Department (1996)
Human Rights Report. Suu Kyi's father, Aung San, is revered by the Burmese
people as the father of
independent Burma. Buildings, parks, and streets throughout the country are
named after him. In his role as
general of the Burmese army, Aung San led a war of independence against
Great Britain, and in 1947 at the
age of 32, he negotiated an agreement with the British to expel Japan and
soon obtain full independence. As
the newly elected leader of Burma that same year, Aung San and others in his
cabinet were assassinated by
a rival political group. Aung San Suu Kyi was 2 years old at the time. 

In March 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi returned from England to Burma to take care
of her mother who had
suffered a severe stroke. Coincidentally, demonstrations against the ruling
military regime were increasing in
size and frequency. By August, throughout Burma, the demonstrations for
freedom and against repression
were so large that Aung San Suu Kyi felt she had a duty to get involved. Two
former generals approached
her about forming a democratic party. Thousands were jailed, hundreds were
killed in the demonstrations,
and hundreds were tortured. In July 1989, Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under
house arrest for 6 years. In
May 1990, Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy (NLD),
along with its candidates
running for membership in parliament, won 82% of the vote. Because Aung San
Suu Kyi is married to a
British citizen, she was not allowed to run for office. Immediately
following the victory, the military nullified
the election results and subsequently arrested, imprisoned, and tortured
thousands of members and supporters
of the democracy movement (ERI & SAIN, 1996; Flynn, 1997; U.S. Department of
State, 1994, 1995, 1996).

Although Aung San Suu Kyi officially was released from house arrest in 1995,
the military regime placed her
under strict surveillance and restrictions of movement and communication
since that time. Her phone is
frequently disconnected and always tapped. She has not had direct access to
a fax machine for years and
virtually no access to Internet or e-mail. Her regular mail is monitored and
censored. Direct access to her at
her home is restricted and requires special permission from the military
intelligence. The movement and
communication of members of her NLD party, particularly the 10 members of
the executive committee and
many elected members of parliament, along with people working at the NLD
headquarters in Rangoon and
throughout the country, are heavily monitored and restricted, involving
frequent arrests. Suu Kyi's own
cousins and in-laws have been arrested, jailed, and accused of trying to
smuggle out video- or audiotapes or
of bringing her money from the United States. In November 1997, the military
used barricades and barbed
wire to prevent Aung San Suu Kyi from visiting NLD supporters in townships
on the outskirts of Rangoon
(Reuters, 1997). 

When Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1991, her
husband and sons received
the award for her in Oslo, Norway, because she had been warned that if she
were to leave Burma she would
not be allowed to return. Additional international recognition has been
considerable, including the following:
honorary doctorate degrees at American University in Washington, D.C., in
1997; the University of
Technology in Sydney, Australia, in 1997; Charles University in The Czech
Republic in 1997; Thammissat
University in Bangkok in 1992; Toronto University in Canada in 1992; Vnje
University in Brussels, Belgium,
in 1994; the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European
Parliament in 1990; the Thorolf Fafto
Prize for Human Rights in Norway in 1990; the Simon Bolivar Prize, United
Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1992; the Prix Literaire des Droits de
L'Homme, Paris in 1992; the
Victor Jara International Human Rights Award of the Center for Human Rights
and Constitutional Law in
Los Angeles in 1993; the Bremen Solidarity Prize in 1993; the Rose Prize by
the International Forum of the
Danish Labor Movement in 1993; the Companion in the Order of Australia in
1996; Member, Academie
Universite des Cultures, Paris in 1993; Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced
Studies in Simla in 1987; and
Honorary Member World Commission on Culture and Development, UNESCO, in 1992. 

The economic and political situation in Burma has similarities to the
situation in South Africa before the end
of apartheid and calls for the international community, governments, and
particularly corporations in Burma to
examine the ethical implications of their investments there and, in my
opinion, withdraw all investments. On
April 22, 1997, the Clinton administration placed a ban on any new
investment in Burma. Currently, there is
approximately $320 million of U.S. investment by companies such as
Caterpillar and Compaq Computers.
Unocal has a $1.2 billion ongoing gas pipeline project. Companies that
decided to pull out of Burma within the
past few years include Federated Department Stores (which owns Macy's),
Disney, Eddie Bauer, Motorola,
PepsiCo, Liz Claiborne, Hewlett-Packard, Texaco, and Apple Computers.
Heineken and Carlsberg brewing
companies divested within the past 2 years. However, several other Asian and
European companies continue
to do business and invest there (ERI & SAIN, 1996). 



After considerable controversy and debate, in July 1997 the Association of
South East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) allowed Burma to become a member and join its economic pact.
Throughout the world,
supporters of democracy in Burma urged ASEAN to refuse Burma's entry into
the group. Some of the
controversy within and outside ASEAN concerned Burma's reputation for human
rights abuses, political
repression, corruption, and its role as one of the world's largest suppliers
of heroin. The opposition under
Aung San Suu Kyi was vehemently opposed to Burma's membership in ASEAN
because this would
legitimize Burma's military regime, now naming itself the State Peace and
Development Council (SPDC).
As late as 1995, SPDC considered ASEAN a tool of Western colonial powers and
believed that membership
in ASEAN would compromise its neutrality (Anwar, 1996). The shift in SPDC's
position toward ASEAN
demonstrates its need to improve its public relations throughout the world.
Also, ASEAN could serve as an
SPDC supporter because it has a record of strong opposition to Western
criticism of its members. This has
been realized recently with ASEAN's defense of its stance of constructive
engagement with Burma.
Cambodia and Laos also were scheduled to be admitted at the same time,
bringing all 10 Southeast Asian
countries together to form an economic pact. But because of the political
instability in Cambodia, it was
denied membership. 

The following interview took place in the home of Aunt San Suu Kyi on March
27, 1997, at her compound in
Rangoon, Burma. In August of 1996 I had written a letter to Aung San Suu Kyi
requesting a meeting with
her in December of that year. A Japanese journalist based in Bangkok had
smuggled the request in to her.
Through yet another journalist in Tokyo I was informed I would be granted an
interview. However, I needed
to postpone my visit until March 1997, and by then both journalists had been
denied visas and could not
transmit my request for a delayed meeting. So my arrival in March was
unexpected and coincided with a
week of concentrated political activity by both the NLD and the military
government in Rangoon. The
interview itself was unfortunately but necessarily brief because of these
strained circumstances and occurred
at the end of a busy day of activity in Aung San Suu Kyi's compound. I had
been invited to the "festival of
resistance" at Aung San Suu Kyi's compound, which is somewhat of a
counterfestival to the military's
elaborate observance of the 52nd anniversary of Armed Forces Day. The
festival was hosted by Aung San
Suu Kyi and attended by approximately 700 Burmese supporters of the NLD,
along with 10 Westerners from
the press and diplomatic community in Rangoon. Through speeches, skits, and
singing, the Burmese people
celebrated their resistance to the Japanese during the fight for
independence from Britain in 1945 and their
continuing resistance to the SPDC. Aung San Suu Kyi was fatigued from the
day's activities and the week's
preparations for the festival, which included negotiating with the military
police to allow for a gathering of
more than the officially permitted five persons. One of her close
associates, Kyi Kyi Maung, told me that
Aung San Suu Kyi had been in poor health and fatigued for several months.
Overall, I was fortunate because
many of the foreign journalists who were fellow guests at the festival had
requested brief on-the-spot
interviews and were turned down, perhaps because of her health and fatigue. 

At the beginning of the interview, I asked Aung San Suu Kyi about her
practice as a Buddhist and the
influence it has on her leadership. Aung San Suu Kyi preferred not to talk
about her Buddhist practice
because she does not consider herself to be an expert in Buddhism.
Nevertheless, later in the interview we
hear her speak about the essence of Buddhism: kindness and compassion. 

White: What do you see as the levers of large-scale change? In your
writings, you talk about the importance
of a "revolution of the spirit," of changing people's minds and hearts, of
freeing people from apathy and fear.
I'd like to hear what you see as being your role in changing people's minds
and hearts. What is a revolution of
the spirit? 

Suu Kyi: I think that the role of those in political leadership is to
convince others to commit themselves to a
certain cause. Commitment is the most important thing of all. Once people
are committed, you can really
move mountains. But so very few people are really committed. They are
committed to a certain extent but
very seldom all the way. I think one has to be committed all the way in
politics to bring about really
revolutionary change. I suppose the primary role of leaders is to persuade
people to develop that kind of
commitment. And one of the first things that leaders have to do is to be
committed themselves. You can't
persuade other people to commit themselves to a certain cause if you
yourself are not committed. 

White: What do you think is the major obstacle for people to be fully
committed? 

Suu Kyi: It often comes down to options, which I don't necessarily mean must
be narrow. One can have a
very broad outlook, but there must be limits when it comes to something that
is outside one's personal
interests. That is what it comes down to. Commitment to a cause means
commitment beyond your own
personal circumstances, beyond your own personal needs and your own personal
inclinations. I think it is not
easy for a lot of people to do that. They will commit themselves but only to
a certain extent because they will
not do anything that they feel will hurt their personal standing or their
family. So it is not an all-out
commitment. The limit is not on one's own personal circumstances, but the
limit is on how far you can
commit yourself, and that kind of limitation is not going to get you very
far. 

White: You talk about intellectual will. Can you explain that? 

Suu Kyi: By that I mean that you should not be emotional in carrying out
your goals. If one is led by emotion,
it leads to all kinds of undesirable elements, such as racism and a belief
in certain "isms" and so on, but you
have to approach the political question from the intellectual level. Of
course, one should not ignore the heart,
because after all, politics is about people, and I don't think you can
afford to ignore that side of politics. But
one has to look at problems in an intellectual way. You've got to study the
situation and find out as far as you
can what is wrong and try to bring about change. That is what revolution is
all about. It is not just upsetting a
system. You've got to have something to replace it. If you say, "We don't
want a military dictatorship," you've
got to say what you want to replace it with, and you've got to provide a
viable alternative. 

White: You talk in your essays about the importance of people overcoming
their fear of loss, of pain and
suffering, so I am assuming this is what you mean, that to be committed one
has to overcome that fear of
loss-loss of the personal self. 

Suu Kyi: Yes, and I think you have to identify with the cause to which you
are committed so that you achieve
fulfillment from trying and from working for the cause rather than from
personal satisfaction within your own
personal circumstances, with your own circle of family, friends, et cetera. 

White: So that leads me to the question, from a woman's perspective, how
does one balance a personal life
with a political life? 

Suu Kyi: I don't think that in revolutionary circumstances it is ever
possible to balance personal life with your
commitment. Commitment has to come first. This is in revolutionary times, in
circumstances like ours where
we are trying to bring about revolutionary change. I don't think you can
say, "Well, it is 50% personal and
50% for the cause." I think it has to be 100% for the cause, and if you are
lucky, you have a family which is
supportive, a family which can work together with you. But if you are not so
lucky and you have a family
which is not supportive and is always nagging and asking, "Why are you doing
this dangerous work?" as
some of our members have found, it is very difficult. 

White: Do you see yourself in some ways as trying to change people's
attitudes? 

Suu Kyi: Well, we have to try, because fear after all is a state of mind,
isn't it? And if I am trying to make
people get rid of their fear, then what I am trying to do is to change their
attitude. 

White: So how do you see yourself doing that? 

Suu Kyi: Well, you have to do it in different ways. You can't really use
just one method. If I had just one
surefire method, then I'd use it all the time. But you have to appeal to
people in different ways depending on
the circumstances. And also you have to work with other people. It's not
something that one person can
achieve alone. I don't think that any one person can bring about
revolutionary change. You need other people
to work with you. There are so many things to be done. For example, a
function like the one that took place
this morning takes a lot of people to put it together. But it is part of the
process of changing people's attitudes,
making them understand that if we want something to happen, we can do it.
All right, it is difficult, the
authorities are putting all sorts of obstacles in our way and there are many
restrictions, but we will do it. That
kind of attitude is essential. And you have to be able to show that you can
do it, which means that you need
the cooperation of other people. You can't do it alone. I suppose you have
to find people who are as
committed as you are, and there are people who are equally committed. I
think you find this out, sometimes
the hard way, slowly and by a process of painful elimination. The less
committed ones fall by the wayside. 

White: How do you see power? I'm thinking of power as Gandhi defined it or
as Martin Luther King, Jr.,
defined it. In the West, we sometimes talk about it from the woman's
perspective. Gandhi talked about power
as serving other people and providing service rather than as controlling
circumstances or people or resources.
What are your thoughts about power? 

Suu Kyi: Power is something that is active. It is something that moves.
Gandhi used power to serve his
people; that serving was active. It is not something that is stagnant. It is
not something that is passive. Power
is the ability to move-move things in one direction or the other. And it can
be for good or bad. Someone like
Gandhi obviously used it for the good, but there are others who use it for
bad purposes. So it is the ability to
move, to change a situation. 

White: So you see yourself as having power in that regard? 

Suu Kyi: Well, somebody once said that the government has power but that it
is the opposition that has
influence. They were not talking about Burma at the time, but this is the
kind of situation that now exists in
Burma. And in a sense this is true. There is also the power of the
powerless, as Viclav Havel would say.
The ability to bring about change and the ability to resist change-that is
power. 

White: There are people who have been leaders of social change movements,
who have had a spiritual
practice-I think of Havel, Gandhi, King, perhaps not Mandella, but Tutu, and
certainly yourself. If you didn't
have your practice, if you weren't a Buddhist, would your leadership be
different? Would your leadership be
effective? 

Suu Kyi: Well, obviously, if I were not a Buddhist, my whole cultural
background would be different, so I'm
sure I would be a different sort of person. But my religion, my parents, my
education all contribute to the kind
of person I am. I think you could say that a change in any of these elements
would mean a change in my
style of politics. 

White: In the West, most people live a secular life without a spiritual
practice. Havel taLked about the
importance of a spiritual practice, a different interpretation of the
revolution of the spirit. He said that without
some kind of a spiritual sustenance or foundation, he didn't think change
would come about. Do you think
people can really be committed to justice and kindness toward others without
a spiritual practice? 

Suu Kyi: I know people who absolutely declare they are not religious and
they have no time for religion, and
yet they are very, very committed to justice. This all boils down to a sense
of understanding, a sense of
empathy, a kind of do to others as you wish they would do toward you. This
involves an understanding that
what hurts you would hurt other people and seeing others in the same light
as yourself-not exactly, of course,
but to be able to empathize with others. Whether or not you are a religious
person, you can have this quality,
and I do know people who claim they have no time for religion and who really
are not at all religious but who
are very, very, very committed to the idea of justice, to the idea of man
being good to man, of human beings
being good to each other, being kind to each other. Basically, that is what
it really comes down to. 

White: Yes, the Dalai Lama says one doesn't need to have any particular
religion to practice kindness. I
talked with Gene Sharp [a political scientist and expert on Burma and
someone familiar to Suu Kyi] at the
Free Burma Conference in Washington, D.C., last month, and a Burmese woman
asked him about metta.'
She said many people can't commit themselves to going to jail, to the active
life of a revolutionary in Burma.
But they can practice metta and open their hearts to all persons. Gene said
he eschewed religious life and
spiritual practice, that they were fine but don't really bring about change.
At this point, I said that the Dalai
Lama believes practicing "loving-kindness" in our hearts is perhaps one of
the most important things we can
do. What are your thoughts on this? Can one do one and not the other? Is it
sufficient for someone to
practice metta without being an activist? 

Suu Kyi: Well, it depends on what you mean by practicing metta. I don't
think that one can really practice
metta passively. I don't think sitting and thinking loving thoughts about
people is enough. His Holiness the
Dalai Lama does more than simply think loving thoughts about others. He
actively cares for people. He takes
the time to talk with them. That is action. He takes the trouble to share
his thoughts on compassion. Real
metta, real compassion, means that you just can't sit by and see other
people suffer or sit by and not do
anything about acts of injustice, because injustice makes people suffer. If
you have metta, if you have
compassion, you just can't sit by and just look at other people suffering
and not do anything about it. You
can't just sit there and say, "Oh, I feel so sorry for the other person."
That's not really compassion. You must
go and do something wherever you can. So I believe in active compassion. I
don't believe that real
compassion, real metta, is passive. White: I'm trying to understand your
idea and experience of fearlessness.
How do we cultivate a state of fearlessness? 

Suu Kyi: You know, I don't think that anybody is totally fearless in this
life. I myself am not entirely without
fear. I think perhaps we should talk in terms of courage rather than
fearlessness. Freedom from fear means
that you don't let fear dominate you. It does not mean that you don't know
fear. It does not mean lack of
knowledge of fear. It means that you are not controlled by it. I often say
to our people that, even if you are
afraid, you must have the ability to do what you know is right. That is
overcoming fear. That is freedom from
fear. It's not that you do not know fear. You do know fear, but you are not
going to let it shackle you. 

White: You and the people in your movement actually suffer physical pain,
injury, torture, and being torn from
loved ones. To go beyond fear, doesn't that require some kind of spiritual
or transcendent beliefs? 

Suu Kyi: Yes. I think no human being can do without some kind of spiritual
cultivation, because there is a
spiritual dimension to life. I don't think you can deny that. Why are there
religions in the world? Because
there is this human need to cultivate the spiritual dimension, to go beyond
the mere gratification of the body
and material needs. I think that we are more than just mere matter and
chemical reactions. Why is it that the
greatest number of poems in this world are either about love or religion?
Poems are actually about spiritual
needs. Why do people feel the need to love or to be loved? All right, let's
not use religion, because there are
those who claim that they are not religious. But I think that even those who
claim that they are not religious
want to feel that they are loved and that they want to love and cherish
other people. Of course, there are
those who don't care about cherishing and loving others, but even those
people would like to be loved
themselves. Why? That is a spiritual need. That is, after all, not a
material need. Very rich people go around
trying to find somebody who will love them and whom they can love. They go
through one marriage after
another. It certainly is not a search for something material, because they
can buy anything they like. 

White: It is a much deeper hunger. 

Suu Kyi: Yes, it must be something that we can only connect to in the
spiritual dimension. And the richest
man in the world does not want to be loved for his money. Why not? If he is
all material, the more people
love him for his money the more at peace he should be because of his great
material achievement. And yet
people always say they want to be loved for themselves. That is what I
believe is a spiritual need rather than
anything else. It all comes down to metta, doesn't it? 

White: That's what I thought. 

Suu Kyi: What people really want is kindness and compassion. 

White: Who has been influential in your thinking regarding your role as
leader? 

Suu Kyi: Obviously my father and people like Gandhi and Nehru are very
important I studied the Indian
independence movement to some extent, so I can say that leaders of that
movement have had a certain
amount of influence on my years of leadership. 

White: Is there any contemporary person who influenced your leadership? 

Suu Kyi: Of course, I very much admire people like Nelson Mandella and
Martin Luther King, Jr. But I think
I have been more influenced by the leaders of the Indian independence
movement and my own father than
by anyone contemporary. 

White: In your speech to the International Women's Conference in Beijing a
few years ago; you talked about
the role of women; that women bring characteristics or qualities of care and
nurturing that you feel have
perhaps been missing in some of the male leaders in the world. At the Free
Burma Conference, one of your
former bodyguards talked about how you taught your bodyguards about
democracy and the politics of the
situation in Burma, talking with them about how not to be afraid. From this
it seems you are very active in
caring for others. Can you say more about how you feel as a woman leader,
about how you transmit or how
you provide a caring and nurturing environment? Are there other examples
that suggest how you see yourself
as a woman leader, as a feminist leader? 

Suu Kyi: I don't see myself as a feminist at all. I've never been a feminist
in that sense because I've never
really felt crushed as a woman. After all, I grew up with my mother. My
father died when I was 2, and while
my mother was rearing a family, she was a very successful person in her own
right. So I've never felt the
need to become a feminist. I always thought that women were equals in their
ability to change their world.
Of course, I am very aware of the fact that in Burma as in many other
countries men are very much the
privileged gender. But because of my own personal circumstances, and because
I basically believe in the
equality of all human beings, I am not a feminist. I have women friends, and
I like men friends, and I think
that women and men can be equally nice or equally nasty. Of course, their
approach is different. And I don't
think it is all purely social. I am sure there must be something biological
in the difference between men and
women. There ought to be because they have different jobs to do. Perhaps
this is going to change with the
advances of science. But I don't try to make a man out of myself. I don't
think that I need to develop a
masculine style in order to be effective as a politician. 

White: How would you define your style of leadership? Do you have feminine
qualities? 

Suu Kyi: Well, I think that I am very much myself, and since I am a woman, I
suppose there should be some
feminine qualities, otherwise I would be a very unfeminine woman. 

White: Why aren't there other women in the executive committee of the NLD? 

Suu Kyi: There used to be one, but she left. 

White: What keeps women from being involved in the higher ranks of the NLD? 

Suu Kyi: Well, like I said, there was one woman who was on the executive
committee, but she left for
various reasons. We have other women in the NLD-not in the executive
committee but in the central
working committee. I think one of the things that prevents women from rising
as high in politics as they ought
to is the fact they still do like to give considerable time to their
families, their children, and that of course
means that they have less time to devote toward a political career. And a
political career under the
circumstances under which we now live is a very risky and uncertain
business. It's not like being a doctor or
a lawyer or a professor, where you can always justify your dreams-the fact
that you are earning money to
contribute to your children and a higher standard of living, et cetera. If
you are going to be involved in the
kind of politics we are involved in here, there is a lot of danger. Some of
our people in prison are women.
There are a number of women in the prisons. So whatever you do, you do
knowingly, knowing you do it at
your own risk. Perhaps not that many women would be prepared to take so many
risks if they feel that they
have an obligation to their family. 

White: On a different track, what is your sense about the future
possibilities for Burma? Personally, I am so
distressed about Western investments here. Finally, Pepsi has pulled out. It
is easier for a bottling company to
pull out than a gas company with its extensive capital investment. But
again, it seems to be that this requires
a sort of revolution of their spirit or a changing of their minds. 

Suu Kyi: A lot of businesses are only concerned with making money. We've got
to face that. 

White: So do you think they will ever pull out of Burma if their only
motivation is making money? 

Suu Kyi: Well, of course this profit-making motivation can be used to our
benefit with the application of
consumer pressure. And those who have compassion will do whatever they can.
Pepsi has pulled out
because it was not worth their while to stay on in Burma. They were losing
more than they were gaining.
Similarly, one can try to bring about that kind of situation with other
companies. 

White: Tell me, for those of us in the West who support the Free Burma
movement and support democracy
here, how can we best be of assistance? 

Suu Kyi: Well, we would really like you to organize a consumer boycott on a
much wider basis, a consumer
boycott of those companies invested here. 

White: I hope we can do that. 

Suu Kyi: Of course you can, if you organize yourselves and if you are
committed enough. Those consumers
who decide to boycott the companies that invest in Burma really don't have
to give up that much. What does
it involve, not drinking Pepsi and drinking Coke instead? What does it
involve, not buying gas from Unocal
and buying it instead from another company like Texaco? Consumers have
nothing to lose because they live
in a market economy, and the market offers alternatives. 

[Sidebar]
AUTHOR'S NOTE: The author wishes to thank Don McCormick, Cliff Cheng, U Tin
Oo, and U Kya Win for their help
with this interview project. 
[Footnote]
NOTES 
[Footnote]
1. Metta is translated from Pali and means "loving-kindness." To practice
metta is to open one's heart and send
thoughts and feelings of loving-kindness to others who are 
[Footnote]
both known and unknown to oneself, explicitly wishing for their well-being
and happiness. 2. Her speech was
videotaped in her house and smuggled out of Rangoon. 
[Reference]
REFERENCES 
[Reference]
Anwar, D. F. (1996, October 25). Reasons for ASEAN to Delay Myanmar. The
Jakarta Post. [Reprinted in Burma
Debate, 3(5). Clements, A. (1997). The voice of hope. New York: Seven
Stories Press. 
[Reference]
EarthRights International (ERI) and Southeast Asian Information Network
(SAIN). (1996, July 10). Total denial, a
report on the Yadana Pipeline Project in Burma. Self published by author.
Flynn, E. (1997). Burma: An activist's
guide to instating democracy. Los Angeles: International Law Center for
Human Economic & Environmental
Defense, National Lawyers Guild. 
[Reference]
Reuters. (1997, November 14). Burma military stops Suu Kyi from leaving
home. BurmaNet News. (Available from
the World Wide Web: strider*igc.apc.org) U.S. Department of State. (1994).
Country report on human rights
practices: Burma. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of State. (1995).
Country report on human rights
practices: Burma. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of State. (1996).
Human Rights Reports.
Washington, DC: Author.