IHT-'Start With Unity,' Democracy Leader Urges Burma

International Herald Tribune

Paris, Thursday, February 17, 2000

'Start With Unity,' Democracy Leader Urges Burma

Q & A /Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

By Bernard Krisher International Herald Tribune

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, last weekend after she addressed about 300 party members at the party's Union Day anniversary celebration.

Q. What was the main message that you conveyed today, 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; that is the main message of Union Day itself.

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 of America 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 the 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 organizations. 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 jeopardized if democracy came to Burma? Would a new democratic regime continue to honor 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. It is part of our party platform. 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 favor 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 without 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 nongovernmental organizations 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 macroconomics 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 is 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.