TA-This government is not capable o

[tinkyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Reply-To: "TIN KYI" <tinkyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: TA-This government is not capable of running the economy

Time Asia. November 15, 1999 Vol.154 No. 19 ( Part 1)
TIME contributor Sandra Burton's Interview with Aung San Suu Kyi

Aung San Suu Kyi: "This government is not capable of running the economy"

TIME contributor Sandra Burton met with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
on Oct. 22 to discuss the recent visit of United Nations Special Envoy Alvar
De Soto and his efforts to promote national reconciliation and the
restoration of democracy. (A few days later, she also met with Foreign
Minister Win Aung.) The following is the complete transcript of Burton's
meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi

TIME: Do you think anything significant will come out of this latest visit
by the U.N. Special Envoy?

Suu Kyi: We think this is one of many initiatives going on, so we don't
think it is particularly significant. As you are probably aware, this has
been going on for some time. This was not the first time that Mr. De Soto
has visited Burma. In fact, this is the fourth time. So it is nothing new
and just one of many things going on about Burma.

TIME: In any of the initiatives that are going on, do you see any hope of
the kind of dialogue that both sides talk about but have failed to achieve
for all these years?

Suu Kyi: I think by now I have made it fairly clear that I am not very happy
with the word "hope." I don't believe in people just hoping. We work for
what we want. I always say that one has no right to hope without endeavor,
so we work to try and bring about the situation that is necessary for the
country, and we are confident that we will get to the negotiation table at
one time or another. This is the way all such situations pan out-- even with
the most truculent dictator.

TIME: Do any of these initiatives help prod a dialogue to take place, or on
the contrary, do they just prolong it by offering endless chances for one
side or another to make diversions?

Suu Kyi: These days I am using the analogy to answer the question which so
many people ask me: what do I think about this stalemate? I have to question
them about what exactly they mean by "stalemate." If you look at the
democratic process as a game of chess, there have to be many, many moves
before you get to checkmate. And simply because you do not make any
checkmate in three moves does not mean it's stalemate. There's a vast
difference between no checkmate and stalemate. This is what the democratic
process is like. If you say that any of these processes nudge one or the
other toward dialogue, it is not always possible to see at the time. Because
if you go back to this game of chess, it is not possible to see whether one
or the other will hasten the process of getting to checkmate or whether it
will drag it out a bit--because sometimes in chess you move sideways, as it
were. It is not a direct step-by-step pattern in one straight line.

TIME: Back to the UN: I spoke with the Foreign Minister [of Myanmar, U Win
Aung] recently, and to paraphrase, his language was rather positive. He
summed it up by saying the "horizon is misty," but he allowed that the dry
season has just started and he suggested that perhaps clarity is not so far
behind. He talked about an "exchange of views" with De Soto in which he did
not characterize you as the "opposition" because, he said, "we are only a
caretaker government, we are only contesting power, so I won't call them the
opposition." Is this a more conciliatory tone toward you?

Suu Kyi: This is nothing new. In recent months they have been taking this
line that there is no opposition in Burma. In fact, what they are really
trying to get at is that they are an unopposed government--that there is no
opposition in Burma. This has been going on for several months now--this
statement coming from various directions that there is no opposition in
Burma.

TIME: The government also spends a lot of time talking about the ethnic
minorities and how until you settle that problem, no government can really
function--that the next government to emerge will benefit from the kind of
talks that are going on.

Suu Kyi: Why don't you talk to the ethnic minorities and find out what they
feel about it? We don't represent an ethnic minority party. Mind you, in the
CRPP [the Committee Representing the People's Parliament), which the NLD
announced last year] there are four ethnic nationality parties represented.
I would suggest that you talk to them directly. That would be better than
getting my views or those of the SPDC [State Peace and Development Council],
which always would, of course, be in their own favor.

TIME: But in terms of this emphasis on "security first" which SLORC [State
Law and Restoration Council] and then the SPDC have talked about for as long
as they have been in power...?

Suu Kyi: All military regimes use security as the reason why they should
remain in power. It's nothing original.

TIME: Is security nonetheless an important element in a country that is so
ethnically diverse as Burma?

Suu Kyi: Wouldn't you say that unity comes first? Out of unity comes
security. I don't think you can impose security from on top. Just look at
Yugoslavia. For years it seemed as if everything was quiescent, but this was
not the kind of security you would like--something that was imposed on the
people and not something that had arisen from trust and understanding
between them. So I think we want to put unity first. Out of real
unity--which can only be based on understanding and mutual respect--will
come the kind of security that we really want and the people really want.

TIME: You've mentioned from the start that you are not against the
military--you are the daughter of the founder of it--but what value would
you place on security if you were to have a more powerful role?

Suu Kyi: Are you asking whether if the NLD were in power, would we use
security as an excuse to do what we want? We certainly would not.

TIME: But would security be an important element of your program?

Suu Kyi: Every government must consider the security of the country. That is
just part of the responsibilities of any government. But true security can
only come out of unity within a country where there are so many ethnic
nationalities.

TIME: Doesn't the number of ethnic nationalities complicate the whole
political situation in Burma?

Suu Kyi: If you mean does it complicate the process of democratization, no.
It's only that the SPDC wants to use it as an excuse to complicate the
situation. We have very good relations with the ethnic minorities, and I
would like to point out that two of the ethnic nationality parties
represented in the CRPP were second and third after the NLD in the [1990
elections]. They won more seats than the NUP [the government party], which
was fourth among the parties. We were of course the frontrunner. So you
could say that we have managed to reach an understanding with some of the
most important ethnic nationality groups. If given half a chance we could
establish perfectly good relations with the ceasefire groups. If the SPDC
wants to test it, why don't they let us meet the ceasefire groups and see
how we get on?

TIME: Are they segregated from you?

Suu Kyi: They are not allowed to meet the NLD. I'm sure they are not allowed
to, and if the SPDC really wants to find out whether we are capable of
achieving unity with the ethnic nationalities in addition to the ones with
whom we are already officially working together, then arrange an official
meeting with the ceasefire groups. We are not afraid of such a meeting. We
think that only positive things can come out of such a meeting.

TIME: Is this something that comes up in talks you would have with a visitor
like De Soto? De Soto was, according to the government, apparently talking
with them at some length about the ethnic minorities.

Suu Kyi: I'm sure Mr. De Soto knows--at least he should know--that four of
the largest ethnic nationality parties are represented in the CRPP, so he
doesn't have to ask us about our relations with them.

TIME: In the 1990 election and in the parliament that was elected, aren't
the ethnic minorities an important part of that? What is your strength in
that regard?

Suu Kyi: We won a majority of seats in a number of ethnic states, including
the Kachin, Karen and Mon. Not in the Shan and not in the Arakan, but it is
with those two parties that we are working together now--along with two
other parties--in the CRPP. So there is perfect understanding and friendship
between us and ethnic nationality parties. We understand them. They want to
represent their own states and that's no problem for us. We can still work
together. We don't believe in a zero-sum situation. It doesn't mean that if
we don't win, the party that wins becomes the enemy. In fact, we look on
them as our allies, and we are very happy that our allies are well
represented in their states.

TIME: In terms of some kind of dialogue at some point, I was around when you
had the first of two sessions of dialogue back in 1994, and when the talks
broke down, that was it. Has anything moved closer to dialogue since then?
Are there any kinds of initiatives going on behind the scenes?

Suu Kyi: Regarding dialogue, whatever we have to say about it we will say
officially, so I'm afraid we won't say anything that is not an official
party statement.

TIME: Have you pledged confidentiality on this subject to the U.N. envoy?

Suu Kyi: No, it is just our policy. If we have anything to say with regard
to the climate for negotiations, we will say it officially as the NLD. I
will not say it personally. The issue of negotiations is something that the
party decides and makes pronouncements about, not any individual within the
party.

TIME: Is there any formal discussion of this going on now within the party?

Suu Kyi: We discuss it all the time. Everybody discusses it all the time.
You are discussing it and then you come and ask whether we are discussing
it.

TIME: Could you give any characterization of what you would consider
dialogue? Is sitting down at the table enough?

Suu Kyi: We spelled that out as well in our official statement regarding a
dialogue--that it has to be a genuine political dialogue based on mutual
respect and trust, and that it must be taken with the intention of doing
what is best for the country. The main aim of the dialogue should be to
resolve the problems of the nation, not to find who is the winner and who is
the loser. That's not what it's all about. It's to try and find an answer
that is acceptable to all parties concerned, which would of course require
some give and take.

TIME: Did any of the talks that took place recently with the U.N. official
and the World Bank official move the situation along in any way toward
eventual talks?

Suu Kyi: With regard to Mr. De Soto's visit, I think we'll have to wait for
the Secretary-General's statement to come out.

TIME: Did your meetings with Mr. De Soto give you any chance which you have
not had earlier to talk about the situation as you see it?

Suu Kyi: As I said earlier, it is not the first of its kind. It's just one
of many initiatives.

TIME: Earlier the World Bank official had come, then the U.S. raised
objections, now he's come back. After the sabotage of the $1 billion
proposal last time...

Suu Kyi: Wasn't that a misunderstanding on someone's part?

TIME: There was a newspaper article about this plan.

Suu Kyi: Nobody has ever confirmed this. The newspaper article got its facts
wrong, so that's where you have to go to. It certainly did not come from us,
so we have nothing to add to it.

TIME: It does appear, however, that there is some desire on the part of some
U.N. donor countries to try and find a new approach to this stalemate. This
would show the amount of economic support that is being lost by
intransigence on the part of the government--not to offer money, but to show
how much is being lost by the fact that no talks are going on.

Suu Kyi: I'm afraid that you would have to ask those who spoke to the SPDC
about whether they went about it in a different way.

TIME: I'm told that the emphasis which would have been used last time--had
the newspaper article not short-circuited the De Soto visit last time--is
still being discussed: front-loading the economic issues onto the political
issues.

Suu Kyi: Let's wait to hear what the Secretary-General has to say about it.
Obviously, he will know better than we do.

TIME: Do you object to any of the economic factors being stressed as
incentive for dialogue?

Suu Kyi: It is not for us to talk about whatever it is that Mr. De Soto
talked about. That would be going beyond the lines of our part of the deal.
We don't talk about what other people talk to others about. I can only talk
about our side, and as I have already explained for us it is but one of many
initiatives, and it is not the first time Mr. De Soto has come out here, so
we just don't think about it as very new or unusual.

TIME: How promising does this approach appear to be?

Suu Kyi: Well, we didn't see Mr. De Soto after his last meeting with the
foreign minister, so we can't say anything about it.

TIME: Your remarks about other governments not lavishing aid and investment
on this government in such a way as to strengthen the government...

Suu Kyi: We say that the problems of Burma are due to bad government, not
because the situation in Burma is bad in itself. It is because of bad
government that we are in such trouble. So it is like pouring water into a
bucket with a hole in it.

TIME: So you haven't changed your opinion on that.

Suu Kyi: No, we have had no reason to change our opinion, because our views
have been vindicated by what has happened over the last two years. The mess
with the economy is not due to what we did. A lot of the investors who
decided not to invest in Burma did not do so because we told them not to do
so. A lot of people who invested and then withdrew are from out of this
country, and the reason they withdrew is because they saw for themselves
that the climate is not right for sustained economic development.

TIME: Many observers thought that this withdrawal of investment, together
with sanctions against new investments and aid, might have put enough
pressure on the government to cause it to bend. Is there any evidence this
is happening?

Suu Kyi: You want an interesting piece on these developments but that's not
how politics works. Sometimes things move in a rather imperceptible way.
There are no fireworks, and then comes a time when change comes
unexpectedly. Sometimes change comes with a lot of fireworks, but not
always.

TIME: I guess I would infer then that nothing is moving.

Suu Kyi: I am not saying that. I am only saying that if fireworks are what
you are after, you will not see them. That's not the way things go all the
time. But if you were to study the situation in Burma really carefully, I
think you would find that things have changed considerably in the last few
years. Apart from anything else, people have stopped crediting this
government with the ability to run the economy. Two or three years ago there
were some governments who wanted to believe that maybe the military regime
was capable of running things. Now I think they all agree that this
government is not capable of running the economy. And whatever they may say
about sanctions--that's a different matter. The reason why people don't
invest is because they have now seen that their investments will not pay off
in a situation where there is no proper framework for sustained development.
The World Bank itself came to the conclusion that the problems of this
economy are due to the way policy is made.

TIME: I've heard there was a very recent World Bank report that was very
scathing in its criticism of economic policymaking here.

Suu Kyi: Yes.

TIME: Does the fact that certain governments which might have thought that
the government was capable of running the economy have now changed their
minds give you some satisfaction that your strategy of trying to discourage
investment is working?

Suu Kyi: We believe it is right, and mind you, it is working, not just
because of what we are doing, but because of the inefficiency of this
government. A lot of people have decided not to invest because this regime
does not know how to run the economy, not because we have asked them not to
invest. In the end I think businessmen will come in here if they think there
are profits to be made, whatever we may say. The reason they are not coming
in now is because they are convinced that there is not much in it for them
under the present circumstances.

TIME: One of the motives behind some governments' feelings that perhaps
there should be another try at getting some increase in the flow of funds,
at least for humanitarian causes, is the fear of China. Suu Kyi: That is an
old argument, and it is always the same governments that bring it up, so
it's a little bit tedious to take up that argument again and again.

TIME: Does the so-called China threat scare you?

Suu Kyi: What do they mean by the "China threat" to begin with? There are
those who say there are so many Chinese people investing in Burma, and if we
don't come in, more Chinese will come in. The reason why so many Chinese are
investing in Burma is because of their geographical position. There are many
Chinese investing in Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. So what's new? If they are
talking about the fact that this government has good relations with the
Chinese government, every single Burmese government has managed to maintain
good relations with the Chinese government. This foreign policy of
maintaining good relations with our neighbors--India, China and
Thailand--was laid down at the very beginning by our first independent
government, which was, by the way, a democratic government. So it's not the
military that has achieved good relations with China. That was something
that was achieved and laid down strongly by a democratic government on the
principle that we need to maintain good relations with our neighbors. It's a
good policy, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the next democratic
government that comes in will have similarly good relations with our
neighbors--perhaps even better ones. We would not abuse our neighbors the
way the SPDC sometimes does when there is a dispute.

TIME: As recently was the case in Thailand?

Suu Kyi: We would not do that, because we don't think there is anything to
be gained by being unnecessarily nasty.

TIME: And yet you were one of the first to come out and denounce the
violence against the Burmese Embassy in Thailand.

Suu Kyi: We are against violence because we think violence begets violence.
And we look at it with a long-term point of view. We are not looking at it
just in terms of the next month or the next year. We are looking at it in
terms of the future of our country, and we think that for the future of our
country it is not a good idea to encourage violence. After all, we have had
repeated experiences with political change brought about by guns and bombs,
and I think it is time to put an end to that. We try to explain the reasons
why we have stood up against violence because we want to get away from this
vicious cycle whereby everyone who wants political change tries to have
superior armed power over the others. This is not what we want.

TIME: One element of the China threat appears to be the growing network of
infrastructure which China is financing, which will culminate in the
development of a deep-water port for China's use on the Bay of Bengal. How
do you look at these developments?

Suu Kyi: Of course we are concerned about any foreign venture in our
country. We have to be, whether it is China, Thailand, India, or a country
that is not one of our neighbors. We must be concerned about what role they
are playing in the development of our country.

TIME: But does this Chinese-financed infrastructure seem sinister?

Suu Kyi: I don't think this is then a reason for people to say we should
therefore help the SPDC more. I think that is just an excuse. If they see it
as a threat, there are other ways they should go about trying to change the
situation.

TIME: What, for example, should people do? Suu Kyi: People should be
concerned about installing a more sensible, responsible government. We've
always said that what we need is a government that is accountable and
transparent, so that the people know what it is doing and can judge for
themselves whether or not they like what is being done.

TIME: How many of your elected NLD parliament members are still in
detention?

Suu Kyi: I think over 40 at the last count. Not all of them are in
detention, there are some in prison.

TIME: How many party members are still incarcerated?

Suu Kyi: We've always said that the number of political prisoners is
somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000, and from what the ICRC [International
Committee of the Red Cross] has said recently, it seems to think it is
somewhere over 1,000, so that is close to our estimates.

TIME: Do you look upon the entry of the ICRC to Burma as a welcome
development?

Suu Kyi: We are waiting to find out. We've been trying to see what the ICRC
can do for our political prisoners, and it's early days yet. It will take a
bit of time to find out whether the authorities are genuinely interested in
cooperation with the ICRC, or whether they are just going along with it
until the ICRC does something that the authorities don't like. Repeat visits
to visitors would be one of the tests, because we have heard that our
prisoners who have spoken to the ICRC have then been harassed by the
authorities.

TIME: Do you look upon the government's agreement to consider the Human
Rights Commission which Australia has proposed, to the point of sending
officials abroad to learn more about the concept?

Suu Kyi: Well, you could say that it provides SLORC with free trips abroad.

TIME: There you go again. The government complains that if you would only
say something nice about them...

Suu Kyi: If they do something nice, we will say something nice. If they want
to do something nice, I'll say something nice about them. Compared with what
they write about me in the newspapers here, our criticisms really appear
like songs of praise. So they have no reason for complaint. If they do
something nice, we wou