INTERVIEW WITH DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI

conducted by Tony Broadmoor, May 2002

Q: You have an incredible grassroots following right now that seems to be nearly 100 percent when you go around the country and talk to people. I realize the majority of these people are not registered members of the NLD or other opposition parties. How can you harness this force? What needs to happen to make these voices heard?

A: Well, this is the main reason why we have been working for the rights of political parties to operate freely, because in any country the only way you get the people to have a voice is through political parties, and that is our prime motive in asking that political parties be allowed to operate freely. This is why the NLD has been struggling over these last years to carry on, that we may have the opportunity to give a voice to these people. Mind you, I don't think we are the only political party that can do it. I think especially in the ethnic nationality areas they have their own parties, which should be allowed to operate freely.

Q: During the 20 months of the talks, did you detect an element of sincerity from the generals? Was there any change in their attitude compared to your previous encounters?

A: I think you have to say there is a change in their attitude; otherwise we wouldn't be where we are. And as to the matter of sincerity, this is for time to give the answer.

Q: Do you see your release as a face-saving gesture for the United Nations and the SPDC, or is it a genuine sign of progress? What do you think of the role of the UN special envoy?

A: I don't think it was a face-saving gesture for either, because I don't think it is face saving that is involved. We have faith in Mr Razali's goodwill, but certainly we have confidence that the United Nations wants what is best for Burma and that the United Nations wants to implement what is spelled out in the United Nations' resolution on Burma. And we look upon Mr Razali as a man of integrity who is truly interested in bringing about desirable change, so I certainly don't think this is a face-saving gesture on his part and on the part of the SPDC.

Q: What might push the SPDC to change?

A: I think the impetus behind any decision to change is the realization that either change is really for the best and you accept what is for the best, or you see that change is inevitable and you decide to gracefully go the way of change. This is usually the reason why people change-because they think it is for the better or because they think they cannot avoid it.

Q: Do you feel that there are members of the regime who recognize the magnitude of Burma's social and economic crises and truly want peace and change, but are afraid to speak up -- people who ultimately support you and what you stand for?

A: I don't know whether there are people [in the military] who support me, or who support the NLD, but certainly I'd think there must be people who realize the enormity of our economic and social problems. Whether or not they dare to speak up, and why they would not dare to speak up if they do not dare, that one would only know if you had an inside knowledge of the regime, which I certainly do not have.

Q: You are now calling for an immediate start to the next step of the reconciliation process. Have there been any developments over the past few days?

A: We have nothing to say about that.

Q: In 1999 you said that you felt it would not take another ten years for democracy to come to Burma. Do you have any vision of Burma five years from now?

A: I am not a visionary ... I can just see us working harder in five years time because this is what everybody has got to be prepared for, to work harder and when we get democracy we have to work even harder. There seems to be this perception in some circles that once we get democracy, we can all sit back and take it easy, but it is nothing like that at all. It means that once we get democracy we have to work very, very hard, much harder than we have ever worked, because we will then have the opportunity to be free to work and we need to work in order to catch up, because we have fallen behind so very badly over the past decades. So I see us in five years' time as struggling, but I hope struggling happily and with liberty.

Q: What is the next step for the National League for Democracy?

A: Well, the present step at the moment (is to) work very hard to do exactly the sort of thing you were talking about when you asked the first question. To ensure that we are in touch with the people so we can act as their voice, or rather, so that we can make their voice heard. This is why we started reorganizing the party and reopening party offices-not just for the simple joy of hanging up the party signboard, but because we want to be able to work and we want to be able to get to the people. Just now I was at one of our townships reorganizing the youth committee there. We want more young people to be involved because this is our future. And I am very pleased that in spite of all the difficulties, we have young people coming forward prepared to take up responsibilities in the youth wing of the NLD. And we have been reorganizing our township committees. Then we want to go right down to the village and ward level so that exactly the sort of people you are talking about can make their voice heard through us. They can tell us what they want us to do, so that the lines of communication are open.

Q: There seems to be a lack of political consciousness among people under 20 in Burma. Are some of the people joining these committees between 18-25?

A: Yes, teenagers. Most of our new recruits are around that age because our youth wing does not take people after the age of 35. We have to keep filling the places. We have to keep getting new people. We manage. This morning I was taking a look at our new youth committee. There were 14 on the committee and I would have thought that at least half of them were under the age of 25, but I don't know this just by looking. Some of them look very young. Previously we limited membership of our youth wing to 30 because I think this is the international norm for youth clubs, youth committees. But we extended it to 35 because of the difficulties of getting young people-especially after the regime made it practically impossible for university students to join political organizations. So we extended it to 35, but a couple of years ago I started reorganizing the committees with this in mind. I think some who were 35-plus were not too happy about it, but we have to stop somewhere. Otherwise, you know, our chairman will be a member of the youth wing if we keep on extending it 35-40, 40-45 and go on like that. So I can see the danger of professional youth members.

Q: You have said since your release that your stance on sanctions, humanitarian aid and tourism has remained unchanged. The issue of humanitarian aid is obviously a sensitive one, one that needs to be addressed in the near term.

A: We will keep looking into this issue in a very practical way. We want to look into some of the humanitarian aid projects which are going on in Burma, and we would like to see how effective they are and whether they are getting aid to the right people in the right way. This is something that we keep reiterating-that it is not just a matter of giving aid, but it has to be given to the right people in the right way, which is to say it has be given to the those who really need it, in a way that will strengthen civil society, not in a way which will entrench the people in the mode of totalitarian rule.

Q: Would you support increased humanitarian aid if it could be proven that it was being delivered directly to those in need and not prolonging the regime's grip on power?

A: Well we have never said no to humanitarian aid as such. We have always said humanitarian aid must be given to the right people in the right way, which of course calls for accountability and transparency. And of course we always say that the minimum necessary requirement is independent monitoring, and this has been our stand throughout. If people thought that we simply said no to humanitarian aid it was a misunderstanding of our position, because we have never said that. We have always said that humanitarian aid must be given to the right people in the right way. That would mean there is a need for transparency and accountability and there must be independent monitoring to ensure that there is accountability.

Q: Some of the aid people I have spoken to are worried that an influx of new international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) could make things more difficult for those already here. What do you think of these concerns?

A: Surely they should not be so much concerned about their role as concerned about the general humanitarian situation. This is something that we worry about-that there are some organizations that are a little bit more concerned about their position, rather than about the common goal. This is human nature. I don't think that just because you belong to an INGO you are absolutely without failings of any kind.

Q: Do you see a federalist nation for the future of Burma?

A: We think that to be a true and lasting union it would have to be of a federalist nature. I think it is important that the people of Burma understand what federal means. The word federal has unhappy connotations because for some reason during the early days of independence the perception of the people in Burma and in general-that is to say, those who were interested in such matters and understood federalism-they understood federal to mean a system under which each state could opt to secede from the union. This was the unfortunate misunderstanding that has made federal such a dangerous concept in Burma. We have been trying to explain over the years, that is not what federal means. Federal simply means the division of powers between the central government and the state governments, and that the constitution makes it clear what powers the central government has and what powers the state government has and who is responsible for anything that could be termed residual powers. If there is a conflict of interest, there should be a constitutional method, usually through the judiciary, whereby this conflict can be resolved. So this is what federalism is. But unhappily, people in Burma do not understand this. There is still this hangover from the early days when federal was taken to mean the right to secede. But as you probably know, the ethnic nationalities are not asking for secession. They are just asking for their rights within a true federal union.

Q: At Karen National Day this year they were saying "independence no, federalism yes".

A: I think that this is something which is very encouraging for the future of Burma, because the ethnic nationalities I believe are keen to build up a strong and lasting union. This is a very good sign.

Extracted from ALTSEAN-Burma’s “New Page, Old Story” Report Card, Burma, 1 April - 30 June 2002, Published September 2002