Asiaweek - We have Compromised - 5

[tinkyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

We Have Compromised - 5

If you came to power you would not feel uncomfortable with such ASEAN
leaders?
"No, you don't. Politics is not like that."
You feel the US is giving you adequate support?
"Yes, I think they support us very very staunchly. And so do other
democracies, particularly the Scandinavian countries. And the EU."
The regime worries that if you come to power you might seek retribution of
some sort.
"We have always said that we are not interested in vengeance. That's our
official policy."
Your principle goal is the welfare of the people, not yourself or your
party?
"Well, the welfare of the people, yes. I mean, what I need for my own
welfare I'd be better off not doing politics. If I were just concerned for
my own welfare."
If your principle interest is the people of your country, why don't you step
aside and let someone else deal with representatives of the government in a
dialogue - given that the regime says it will talk to anyone in your party
but you.
"But that's just an excuse. They have made a lot of misleading statements
about dialogue. And they have shown a lack of sincerity with regard to
dialogue."
You feel that even if you agreed to this they would not engage in
substantive dialogue?
"No, no. They are not engaging in dialogue because they don't want to,
because they don't want to give up power. It's not because there's any real
reason for not engaging in dialogue."
Why not give it another try and say you will send someone else?
"We have said that we would agree to lower level negotiations which would
not involve me."
You have?
"Yes. Actually, we agreed to that in 1997 when it was put to us through a
third party. And when we agreed, they didn't come back on it, so we knew
that they were not sincere. It's just an excuse. They are always coming up
with new excuses."
But your party has put out statements saying that the regime should not
demand that you not be present, that they choose their representatives to
dialogue and you choose yours.
"Right, that's true. Of course, we've always said that what we want is
genuine political dialogue not a dictated set showpiece."
But your choice is that you should represent your party?
"We have not said who we are going to choose. But we said we'll choose our

own representatives. They can't dictate to us. Then will they let us dictate
to them whom they choose as their representatives? How would you call it
genuine political dialogue if each side does not have the right to determine
its own representatives. If one side is going to dictate terms under which
the other side participates in the negotiations that's not really
negotiations at all."
What is wrong with taking that step?
"What step? That we allow them to decide on the representatives from our
side?
Yes, if it's for the good of the people, if it might resolve the impasse.
"Well, how would you call this in terms of equality?
It's not equal, but does it matter if it gets the process moving?
"But then that's not genuine political dialogue. And would you not say that
what we need is genuine political dialogue?"
Of course, but they may be genuine - it's just that they don't like dealing
with you.
"Well, if they didn't like dealing with me, why didn't they have a dialogue
with our party chairman U Aung Shwe when I was under house arrest for six
years and he asked for it so many times over and over again. It was after I
was released from house arrest they brought out this excuse that they didn't
want to talk to me, that's why they were not having negotiations. But when I
was under house arrest, U Aung Shwe actually asked to talk to them and at
one point he was not even asking them for broad political negotiations, he
was simply asking to discuss with them the working procedures of the
National Convention - because it was so undemocratic. And they refused to
talk to him. So if what they wanted was dialogue without me, they had six
years in which to do it."
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."
Your executive committee is getting pretty long in the tooth.
"Well, yes, the younger ones are in jail at the moment. Our younger
potential EC members."
It seems that the regime feels more comfortable than ever at this time. They
are less worried about you and your party. Many feel they are winning the PR
battle so to speak.
"I don't know whether they are less worried or more worried, but we are not
particularly worried either. Because I think the regime knows that they have
a lot of problems."
Reading some recent reports in the regional press, I see headlines like
'Burmese icon suffers indignity of dissent' and 'Critics have a tough time
with Aung San Suu Kyi' etc etc. It seems even normally supportive papers are
being more critical of you.
"We've always had that. I don't think we have ever had 100% support from any
media. I think there were probably some Western newspapers which
consistently supported the movement for democracy. But I don't think you can
say that for any of the Asian media."
You don't feel that you are somehow losing the game?
"No, we've always had ups and downs. This is nothing new. We've always had
these declarations about how the NLD is losing ground and it's, you know,
people are falling away. And then again you get another wave of you know
troubles within the NLD and too much pressure and cracking up, it's really
like waves going up and down, and that's politics. It's been like that since
the very beginning in 1988. We have never had, I don't think we've ever had
a run of more than a few months of consistent, of one view of the NLD. It'll
be like this now, like this time. I remember a matter of days before the
elections in 1990 a lot of newspapers were commenting on the fact that of
course the NLD was popular and that it could possibly win the largest number
of seats in parliament, but certainly not a majority. And this is not the
view of one paper, it was a general view. And this was days before the 1990
elections. And then of course, after the elections it was a completely
different view altogether. As though they knew all along that it was the NLD
that had the grassroots support. So we've got quite used to that now. The
ups and downs of news reporting."
Nobody realized in advance what the magnitude of your win would be in the
1990 elections. I suspect even NLD people never thought you would win that

many seats.
"We did. I think, I can prove it. I had actually written to somebody to say
that I was sure that we would win at least 75% of the seats. And I think
there were others who knew that too."
You've taken this position even against humanitarian aid?
"What stand against humanitarian aid?
People donating medical products and injectables and so on.
"No, we haven't. Now this is the problem, people never go into these things
thoroughly. What we said about humanitarian aid is that we are not against
it. But we want it properly monitored so that it is given equally to
everybody and not just to those who are favored by the authorities. And that
the aid should not be used by the authorities as part of the propaganda
machine."
But no developing country can ever guarantee aid won't be misued in some
way. So they can't guarantee that here, and so because of your stance it
doesn't come in and again the people suffer.
"Well, some can come in, and some has done so. I mean, the way with certain
United Nations agency projects, we have agreed that they were doing good and
that it was being properly monitored and they are going ahead. There are
others to which we have objected on the grounds that they were helping the
regime. For example, there were certain projects where it was arranged for
members of the regime's USDA United Solidarity & Development Association to
be sent on courses abroad for observatory holidays and things like that. And
we would object to this because this is obviously playing into the hands of
the SPDC. But we have never said that we are against humanitarian aid per
se. And we've never said that all NGOs should leave Burma or not come in. Or
anything like that."
So again there seems to be a wrong perception since many people say: Suu Kyi
won't even let humanitarian aid in, they even mention examples, some
injectables.
"Well, nobody even asked us what do we feel about them donating whatever it
is. And if they had asked us we would probably have said: well, that's fine
provided you make sure it is given to everybody in an even-handed way and
that it's not given to the USDA. For example, if you're going to distribute
milk powder we certainly don't want the USDA to be the organization through
which this milk powder is distributed. Because then that would become a
political rather than a humanitarian project."
But surely at least people would get the milk powder anyway?
"Well, depends who. The people might not get the milk powder, the families
of the USDA might get the milk powder and some of it might well go onto the
market. A diplomat admitted to me that he had actually seen some medicines
donated by his country in a shop. I think there was a certain symbol which
indicated that this was part of a load of medicines donated for humanitarian
purposes. But where did those medicines end up: in a private pharmacy. There
is a lot of that going on. This is what we want to guard against."
After six years house arrest, you now have limited freedom. But people say
you don't travel about the city much.