BURMA IS READY FOR DEMOCRACY

[mizzima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

BURMA IS READY FOR DEMOCRACY

>From the Asian Age (New Delhi)
March 3, 2000

At the National League for Democracy headquarters in Rangoon, Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader and 1991 Nobel Peace Prize
winner, spoke with BERNARD KRISHER, publisher of Cambodia Daily, after
she addressed about 300 party members at the party's Union Day
anniversary celebration.

Q: What was the main message that you conveyed, and what additional
things would you like to say to your people?
A: In commemorating Union Day, I talked about the fact that unity cannot
be built without mutual trust and understanding, and that there is no
hope for peace or prosperity unless there is unity. So you have to start
with unity of a nation.

Q: How would you gauge the level of your support today inside Burma?
A: I would not like to think of it in terms of my support as such. I
think we should think of it in terms of how strong the forces of
democracy are. I think I could say with great confidence that 90 percent
of the people of Burma want democracy.

Of course, of those who want democracy, those who really dare to go out
and fight for it politically are in the minority because there is so
much oppression by the military government and there is tremendous fear.
But we have a very strong group of people at the core, as you could see
today at the meeting.

Since about the autumn of 1998, when we founded the Committee of the
People's Parliament, it has been very difficult for us to hold any of
our commemorative ceremonies. Usually these ceremonies are an
opportunity for us to deliver political messages and to demonstrate our
unity, but from the beginning in September 1998 of the Committee of the
People's Parliament and throughout 1999 the authorities tried to
intercept every one of our ceremonies.

For example, last year you would not have been allowed in. they had
roadblocks in front of our headquarters and they prevented all
foreigners from coming. And they prevented certain representatives from
other political parties from coming. Diplomats were also prevented from
coming. Even members of our party had to produce their national
registration cards and were asked to prove they were members of our
party.

Huge roadblocks kept our people away. This went on through all of last
year. But still our people kept coming, and I think partly perhaps as a
result of such perseverance among our members, the authorities have
decided that there is not much to be gained by continuing this kind of
policy. Last month, when we had our independence day ceremonies, they
allowed in diplomats and foreigners and they did not use roadblocks.

Q: Some people argue that not all countries are ready for democracy.
What is your argument to support your contention that the Burmese people
are ready to live under a democracy?

A: If you want to put it that way, then you can say that in a sense a
democracy is never perfect; even in the United States democracy is not
perfect. We could also argue that the Japanese were not ready for
democracy is not perfect. We could also argue that the Japanese were not
ready for democracy in 1945, but they were given democracy and they have
worked and lived with democracy.

Sometimes ? and this may be an arguable point ? I think in some ways the
people of Burma are more ready for democracy now, a lot more ready now,
than the people of Japan were ready for democracy in 1945, because in
Japan there was never a struggle or movement for democracy. Democracy
was simply handed to them on a plate as part of the arrangements after
the war.

Now with regard to Burma, apart from the fact that Burma spent quite
some time under British colonial administration, which did structure
some forms of democracy, we became independent as a democratic nation,
as a parliamentary democracy.

So we have had experience of democracy in practice, and apart from that,
even if we leave aside the long years under Burma's Socialist Program
Party ? when the desire of people for a more open society, for a return
to democratic institutions was never crushed ? we have now been
struggling for democracy actively for the last 12 years.

Q: What is your feeling about Japanese policy toward Burma?

A: We find that a lot of people in Japan who are very sympathetic to us
and to our cause, if they get to know about it. There are very, very
supportive groups of Japanese people and organisations. But there is not
enough information about what is going on in Burma.

Q: What about the Japanese government?

A: The government is quite often influenced by business considerations.
But it is not that alone. I am inclined to think there is a tradition
among Japanese governments, whichever government they may be, to try to
establish good relations with whoever is in power in whichever nation.
And perhaps that, as much as ? and perhaps even much more than ? the
influence of the Japanese business lobby would incline the Japanese
government toward trying to establish good relations with the military
regime.

Q: Do you think that investments in Burma might be jeopardised if
democracy came to Burma? Would a new democratic regime continue to
honour such investment agreements?

A: We are not against business at all. This is the mistake a lot of
people make. They think the National League for Democracy and the
democratic forces in general are anti-business. We are not
anti-business. We are for a free-market economy. But now we don't have a
genuine market economy. It isn't a free-market economy at all. It is
very much biased in favour of those who are connected to the regime.

So we object to investments now not because we are against investments
per se, but because we don't think this is the right time. By investing
now, business is supporting the military regime. The real benefits of
investments now go to the military regime and their connections. They go
to just a small, very privileged elite. And the people get very little.

Q: How can people who wish to give humanitarian aid really help the
needy Burmese people with out going through the military regime?

A: The first question to ask is how effective is this humanitarian aid?
What do they mean, exactly, by humanitarian aid? What kind of aid is
that? And how many people is it supposed to help? In general, whatever
humanitarian aid that non-governmental organisations may be able to give
is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed in Burma. What we
really need in Burma is substantive change, the kind of change that will
enable people to help themselves.

Q: What are the most serious economic problems in Burma?

A: The economy is in a mess. There are a number of major problems which
have brought the economy to such a state. There is no macroeconomics
view at all on the part of the military regime, and there are the
obvious problems like the extremely unrealistic exchange rate of the
kyat. And then there were all those unproductive industries which are
legacies of the socialist regime and there is the inability of the
civilian administration, the civil servants, to operate freely.
Everywhere the military is dipping its finger in and not being
efficient.

Q: Do you think membership in the Association of South East Asian
nations in having a positive or negative impact on Burma?

A: Asean is not having any positive impact on Burma. Two years ago,
before they admitted Burma as a permanent member, they made the point
that once Burma was a member of Asean it would be more reasonable and
they would be in a better position to influence Burma and guide it along
the right lines.

We argued that we did not think this was the case. What we thought was
that once Burma had been made a full member of Asean, which is what they
wanted, then they wouldn't try any more to be good boys ? they would be
more oppressive, and they would just go ahead and do what they wanted
and they wouldn't really listen to any advice from the members of Asean,
and I think that this turned out to be absolutely true. They have turned
out to be most oppressive between 1998 and now. The oppression increased
noticeably after they became a member of Asean.

By arrangement with the International Herald Tribune