[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

COMMENTS ON KHIN NUNT INTERVIEW



COMMENTS ON KHIN NYUNT'S 2 JUNE INTERVIEW 
-- FREE SUU KYI, FREE BURMA campaign, 4 June 1995.
 
On 3 June 1995 the "New York Times" ran the following article:
 
BURMA UNLIKELY TO FREE DISSIDENT WHEN DETENTION TERM ENDS
 
By PHILIP SHENON
"New York Times" 3 June 1995
 
     YANGON, Myanmar, June 2 -- Hopes for the immediate release
of this country's leading opposition figure were dashed today
when the head of Burmese military intelligence said she could not
be freed until "there is the guarantee of peace and tranquility
in our country," a time that he suggested was still far in the
future.
     The opposition leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been
held under house arrest in Myanmar, formerly Burma, for nearly
six years, was supposed to be released next month, when her
formal detention expires.
 
     But asked in an interview today whether the July 11 release
date will be honored, the head of military intelligence, Lieut.
Gen. Khin Nyunt, said that he could not even discuss her
situation until "there is a guarantee for peace and tranquility
in our country. Until then, I cannot say anything about her
situation."
     He also acknowledged that the military Government had
decided to refuse recent visa requests from Mrs Aung San Suu
Kyi's British husband, Michael Aris, and that Mr Aris would not
be allowed to see his wife "until the appropriate time." The
general did not say when that would be.
     The remarks by General Khin Nyunt, who is widely seen as the
most powerful member of the junta that controls this nation of 45
million people, will not be received well in Washington or in the
capitals of other nations that have pressed for the release of
Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
1991 for her nonviolent campaign to restore democracy to her
homeland.
     Republican leaders in Congress have threatened to impose
economic sanctions on Myanmar if Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi is not
released on schedule next month and if there are no additional
moves toward democracy here.
     But General Khin Nyunt said today that the junta, which took
power in a 1988 crackdown on the democracy movement in which
thousands of people died, did not fear American sanctions,
especially given the recent flood of investment in this country
by several of Myanmar's neighbors, especially Singapore, China
and Malaysia.
     "We know that in the U.S. there are moves to impose a trade
embargo on us", he said. "But even if there is a full trade
embargo, it will not make that much difference."
     He said a de facto American embargo already existed, and
that it had completely failed to influence the junta.
     After protests from human rights campaigners, several
American companies, including Levi Strauss and Eddie Bauer, have
shut down their operations in Myanmar.
 
     While offering no hope that Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi would be
released anytime soon, General Khin Nyunt was still notably
conciliatory to the dissident leader, who is seen by millions of
Burmese as their legitimate leader.  Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi's
political party won a landslide victory in 1990 elections --
results that were nullified by the military.
 
     "We treat her as a sister," the general said. "There are no
problems between us," he said. "Our staff members meet with her
frequently. She is in good health, and all of her needs are being
looked after."
 
     The junta has agreed to free Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi if she
agrees to leave the country and not return for at least several
years.  Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi has said she will never accept that
condition.
 
End article from "New York Times".
 
 
This article inspires comment on a number of issues:
 
1) THE DATE OF 11 JULY
2) SLORC'S FLOUTING EVEN ITS OWN "LAWS"
3) SLORC'S ILLEGITIMACY BY BUDDHIST AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
4) THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS
5) SLORC'S UNWILLINGNESS TO ENTER A POLITICAL PROCESS
6) THE GUARANTEE OF "PEACE AND TRANQUILITY"
 
 
1) 11 JULY
 
11 JULY, WHEN AUNG SAN SUU KYI'S DETENTION ORDER EXPIRES, IS THE
DATE INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION SHOULD FOCUS ON (despite Bill
Richardson's inexplicable reference to 19 July). The reason the
date is the 11th rather than the 20th July, when Suu Kyi was
locked up, is probably numerological, since there are 9 days
between the 11th and the 20th, and 9 is Ne Win's lucky number.
This suggests that the Old Man is still taking an interest.  
 
The date of 11 July was first made public by Professor Yozo
Yokota, the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar appointed by the UN
Commission on Human Rights. On 23 February 1995, in his oral
report to the Commission, he stated that: 
 
"... I must express my disappointment that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
who has been under house arrest since 20 July 1989, has not yet
been released. I now understand that her detention has been
further extended for six months from 10 January to 11 July 1995.
This decision was taken by the Council of Ministers on 14
December 1994, though the order was only shown to her finally on
29 January 1995. ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN INTERPRETATION
OF ITS ALTERED LAW, applied to her with retroactive effect, SHE
CANNOT CONTINUE TO BE HELD BEYOND 11 JULY 1995 , by which time
she will have been detained without trial for six years."
(emphasis added)
 
 
2) SLORC's FLOUTING OF EVEN ITS OWN "LAWS"
 
This statement evokes a strong sense of deja vu:
 
In his 1994 (written) report to the Commission on Human Rights,
the Special Rapporteur referred, in para 19, to a question he
had put to the same Military Intelligence Chief quoted above:
"When asked if the Government intends to release [Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi] on 20 July 1994, GENERAL KHIN NYUNT ANSWERED THAT IT WAS
STILL TOO EARLY TO SAY" (emphasis added). Later in the document,
(in paragraph 74) the Special Rapporteur states: "With respect to
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Government should release her
immediately.  In any event, she should not be kept under house
arrest after 20 July when, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN
INTERPRETATION OF MYANMAR LAW, THERE WILL BE NO LEGAL BASIS TO
CONTINUE TO KEEP HER UNDER HOUSE ARREST" (emphasis added). 
 
Juxtaposing the two highlighted passages makes the point clear,
for those who had any doubt: SLORC rule is not the rule of law.
AUNG SAN SUU KYI WILL BE RELEASED IF AND WHEN THE GENERALS SEE
FIT. THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
 
 
3) SLORC'S ILLEGITIMACY BY INTERNATIONAL AND BUDDHIST STANDARDS
 
SLORC makes considerable effort to claim that it is a legal body.
It calls itself the "State Law and Order Restoration Council" 
speaks of itself as the "legal fold" to which errant ethnic
groups return when they are finally coerced into cease-fires, and
the words "law" and "legal authority" are constantly on the
generals' lips. They also spend much time and effort seeking
"Buddhist" credentials by paying respect and making offerings to
senior monks (and being photographed doing so, of course).
 
The reality is otherwise. Both by international and Buddhist
standards, SLORC is an illegitimate and illegal entity.  In a
moment of indiscretion Gen. Saw Maung, the previous SLORC leader,
spoke the truth, and said that SLORC rules by martial law, which
means "no law at all". This lapse is probably one reason he was
removed from power. The record is clear: SLORC seized and retains
power through innumerable illegal acts -- its bloody suppression
of the democracy movement in 1988; its illegal detention of Aung
Suu Kyi and other political prisoners; its illegal rejection of
the people's will expressed in the 1990 elections; its gross and
widespread violation of other human rights; its systematic
destruction of any form of civil society; its military
suppression and racist domination of Burma's indigenous peoples,
and so on. These actions violate international law and standards,
as numerous UN resolutions have stated*. They also contravene
Burmese domestic law (though of course there is no independent
judiciary to implement this law). 
 
What may not be so well known in the West is that such actions
also violate the Buddhist political code. The basic framework of
Buddhist ethics for rulers is set out in the "Ten Duties of the
King" (dasa-raja-dhamma). One of these principles is AVIRODHA or
non-opposition, non-obstruction; that is to say that [the ruler]
should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct any
measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. In
other words he should rule in harmony with his people. Another
principle is that of AVIHIMSA -- non-violence, which means not
only that he should harm nobody, but that he should try to
promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything
which involves violence and destruction of life. If a ruler does
not respect these or the other principles, he is considered to be
without legitimacy, and can rightfully be removed. 
 
In an attempt to dismiss the criticisms that the United Nations,
Western governments and human rights organisations have made of
their behaviour, the SLORC generals have tried to argue that
human rights are merely a Western invention, and of no relevance
to Burma, which has its own cultural standards, based on the
teachings of the Lord Buddha. The fact is that there is very
little difference between international human rights standards
and those derived from the Buddha Dhamma. In the words of the
most highly qualified Burmese Buddhist monk, U Rewata Dhamma, 
 
  "The depiction of rights as simply a Western invention fails
  to understand the relationship of rights to responsibilities
  and ethical norms. If the ethical systems we find in
  different times and different parts of the world varied
  greatly, we might have a problem, but in fact the central
  values of all societies are very much the same. All ethical
  systems encourage people to love each other, and discourage
  killing, violence and so on. The universality and
  inseparability of human rights may therefore be understood as
  reflecting the universality and inseparability of inter-
  responsibility emerging from Dhamma." (Talk delivered in
  Seoul, December 1994 -- full text attached as Annex I)
     
 
4) ON SANCTIONS 
 
The most important investments, in terms of future revenue for
SLORC, are from European and American gas and oil companies. It
is gas and oil, rather than Singaporean hotels or Chinese bridges
which could keep military rule afloat and armed, no matter how
badly the generals run the economy. The kind of sanctions that
could block these investments would be very damaging to SLORC. 
 
Hard currency is hardly something that China is likely to give
its SLORC clients.
 
 
5) SLORC DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY POLITICS
 
It is widely thought that SLORC has refused Michael Aris a visa
because he released Suu Kyi's statement of 22 January. In this
important statement (attached as Annex II) Suu Kyi says
essentially that she is not willing to continue her discussions
with SLORC (which had won the generals much international credit,
including some Japanese ODA) unless the talks are widened out
into a genuine political process involving the SLORC, the
political opposition, and representatives of ethnic groups (in
fact the tripartite process supported by the UN General Assembly
in 1994 and the Commission on Human Rights in 1995). This puts
the ball back in SLORC's court. It seems from Khin Nyunt's
statements in the NYT article that rather than accepting the
challenge, SLORC is saying it doesn't want to play anymore. At
least, not for the foreseeable future.   
 
 
6) WHAT IS THE GREATEST THREAT IN BURMA TO PEACE AND TRANQUILITY?
No prizes for identifying this Catch-22 or vicious circle
 
                                                             
 
* The Burmese military cannot even claim (though it tries to)
that all these violations of civil and political rights are
balanced by an improvement in economic, social and cultural
rights and the right to development. On the contrary, apart from
some Yunanese Chinese development in Mandalay, and Singaporean
Chinese development in Rangoon the economy is in a downward
spiral due to the generals' economic incompetence. The village
economic and social structure, especially in the non-Burman
areas, is in an advanced state of collapse due largely to the
depredations of the Burmese army.
 
*************************************************************
****
*************************************************************
***
APPENDIX I
 
                       DHAMMA, ETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
 
                            Sayadaw U Rewata Dhamma
 
 
My responsibility as a Buddhist monk is to teach Dhamma. (Other
traditions may refer to God, Brahm, Logos, the Totality and so
on. In this talk I shall use Buddhist terms, which I hope you
will translate into your own spiritual language.) 
 
Dhamma is sometimes translated as Universal Law, Truth or
Reality. It is not always easy to distinguish reality from
illusion, and this is particularly the case in matters of
religious practice. The other day in New York I was speaking to a
Japanese friend who said of a public figure that he was very
devoted to Buddhism since he made many offerings to monks and
built pagodas. Do such actions truly define a Buddhist? What is
true Buddhism, true Christianity, true Islam or whatever? 
 
To follow the spiritual path, practicing love, compassion and
forgiveness towards our fellow beings is the essence of true
religion. This is our true nature or Dhamma, which we realise
when we are in a state of spiritual health. The state of disease
which conceals our true nature the Buddha called Dukkha. He came
as a healer with a specific diagnosis and prescription for this
disease. But how can a healer help unless people actually take
the medicine offered?  Antibiotics, for example, do not work if
they just sit on your altar surrounded by flowers and swimming in
incense. You have to take them as prescribed. 
 
The Buddha's medicine is right understanding, right thought,
right action and so on. This practice enables us to see the true
nature of reality and develop love and compassion. These are not
new things I am saying -- you have all heard them before from
your teachers and spiritual friends of all traditions. The
tragedy is that there are very few people, lay or ordained, who
take them seriously and put them into practice. All the problems
of our Asian countries and beyond could be solved if only we took
our medicine as prescribed. 
 
This medicine is not just a remedy for individuals but is also a
vital ingredient of social development. Buddhism teaches that
there is no such thing as a separate individual. We are all made
up of everything and everybody. As Kalu Rimpoche says: 
  
     "We live in illusion and the appearance of things.
     There is a reality;
     We are that reality.
     When you understand this, you see that you are
     nothing;
     And being nothing, you are everything.
     That is all"
          
      
The Mahayana specifically emphasises the enlightenment of all
beings, and even we of the little tug-boat praise the triple gem
of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, where Sangha means community -- in
a specific way the community of monks and nuns, but in a broader
sense, of all beings. Every Buddhist tradition gives a central
place to the Brahma-Viharas: Upekha (equanimity), Metta (loving-
kindness), Karuna (compassion), and Muditha (joy in the joy of
others), the last three of which are directly social. 
 
In Buddhist countries an expression of the social dimensions of
Dhamma is the guiding and softening influence which the ordained
Sangha has traditionally exercised over rulers. Where this
influence declines, we see the rulers become ever more cruel and
irresponsible, and most of the Sangha equally irresponsible,
preoccupied with ritual, textual studies and "individual"
development. No amount of pagoda building or formal respect for
the Sangha can substitute for their mutual responsibility to
serve the people and the Dhamma. 
 
>From an understanding of Dhamma (God, the Totality etc) and the
interdependence of every aspect of universe, including that of
community, or Sangha, the religious traditions have developed
ethics or guidelines for human behaviour. These guidelines serve
to maintain the harmony of social life and to encourage the
practice (or medicine) which will help end our individual and
social disease.
 
At the heart of Buddhist ethics is inter-responsibility, or
Bodhicitta; what His Holiness the Dalai Lama calls Universal
Responsibility. In the Theravada we speak of Samma-sankappa or
Right Thought, which leads to Bodhi, the Awakened Mind. This
principle is expressed in everyday terms by the teaching of
loving-kindness, non-violence, compassion, and particular
responsibilities. For monks and nuns these are set down in the
rule or Vinaya; for lay people in the Sigalovada Sutta and for
rulers in the Dasarajadhamma. 
 
In the early, organic, societies the Buddha was addressing, these
specific responsibilities were assumed to be adequate guidelines
for human behaviour, with no need to identify the corresponding
rights. In modern, fragmented societies, however, where the
fulfillment of responsibilities cannot be guaranteed by the
immediate community, the corresponding rights are specified and
protected by States and International  Organisations. In large
part these bodies derive their legitimacy from their protection
of human rights. A State which does not guarantee the enjoyment
of human rights by its people loses its claim to legitimacy.
 
The depiction of rights as simply a Western invention fails to
understand the relationship of rights to responsibilities and
ethical norms. If the ethical systems we find in different times
and different parts of the world varied greatly, we might have a
problem, but in fact the central values of all societies are very
much the same. All ethical systems encourage people to love each
other, and discourage killing, violence and so on. The 
universality and inseparability of human rights may therefore be
understood as reflecting the universality and inseparability of
inter-responsibility emerging from Dhamma. 
 
A striking example of the way responsibilities and rights can
reach across time and cultures is the correspondence between the
right of popular participation enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and Avirodha. Avirodha is the
principle or non-opposition or non-obstruction contained in the
Dasarajadhamma, or "ten duties of kings". This instruction, given
by the Buddha 2,500 years ago, requires the ruler not to oppose
the will of the people, or obstruct any measures that are
conducive to their welfare.  
 
In conclusion,  I would ask those attending this conference to
work in your countries for the true practice of Dhamma, whatever
you call it, and its application to genuine social development. 
If the central human values of compassion and loving kindness
were actually practised in our countries, we would soon find a
solution to our problems, and our people would not be sacrificed
on the altars of  "security" or economic "development". 
 
                           May all beings be happy
 
(Delivered to the Asian Leaders Conference, Seoul, December 1994)
     
 
*************************************************************
****
APPENDIX II
 
                                 STATEMENT
 
It has always been the firm conviction of those working for
democracy in Burma that it is only through meaningful dialogue
between diverse political forces that we can achieve national
reconciliation, which is the first and most vital requirement for
a united and prosperous country.  That the international
community shares this view is evident from clause 5 of the
General Assembly resolution of December 1994 which encourages the
government of Burma to engage in "a substantive political
dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders,
including representatives from ethnic groups, as the best means
of promoting national reconciliation and the full and early
restoration of democracy".
 
It was in full acceptance of this view and with genuine good will
that I approached the meetings with members of the State Law and
Order Restoration Council on 20 September and 28 October 1994. 
There has not been and there will not be any secret deals with
regard either to my release or to any other issue.  I adhere to
the principle of accountability and consider myself at all times
bound by the democratic duty to act in consultation with
colleagues and to be guided by the aspirations of those engaged
in the movement to establish a truly democratic political system
in Burma.  I remain dedicated to an active participation in this
movement.
 
 
Aung San Suu Kyi
22 January 1995
Rangoon
Burma