(May 7, 1996)
DC: How would you describe the current state of the NLD?
ASSK: The NLD [is] operating with great difficulty because when SLORC realized after my release last year, that the NLD was still very much a cohesive force, they started trying to make problems for us. But we've learned to cope with it.
DC: Would you say that party members and sympathizers face more intimidation now than prior to your "release"?
ASSK: I think they were subjected to a lot of persecution immediately after the elections and for a year or two following that, and then things quietened down. Probably because the authorities thought that by then the NLD was properly crushed. But now that they've realized we're far from being crushed . . . they're getting more brutal.
DC: In what way exactly?
ASSK: The authorities are now basically disregarding the law when dealing with the supporters of the NLD. . . the law, they hardly give it lip service. . . they will arrest somebody and they will try him under some section of the law, but any section they like.
DC: So they have a compliant judiciary now?
ASSK: Oh, totally compliant. I sometimes wonder whether one can apply the term judiciary.
DC: How many NLD members are now being held for their political beliefs?
ASSK: I'm afraid I can't give you the precise number. . . [It's] something that we have to guess at because the government does not admit to having political prisoners, and they make it very difficult for us to find out exactly how many, but we assume that there are political prisoners in four figures, probably between one and two thousand, but not all of them are NLD. There are non - NLD political prisoners as well.
DC: Do you think that it's now dawning on the SLORC that, should they complete the National Convention, they would have to hold fresh elections and that this is another reason why they're stalling?
ASSK: I do not think so. I really can't say what SLORC is thinking. They don't consult me. I think it is just that the National Convention has not gone the way that they thought it would. That is why they're having difficulties bringing it to a conclusion.
DC: It has been six years since the last elections. Some people are thinking that the time is coming when there should be new elections.
ASSK: Well, I do not think that there is any point in having new elections until they've resolved the problem of the old elections, and, moreover, I would not trust any election held under the authority of SLORC. Since they have had this experience of 1990, I do not think that they will go in for free and fair elections again.
DC: So which authority would you be willing to participate under?
ASSK: It would have to be a democratic monitor.
DC: Which constitution would you hold as legal and binding?
ASSK:A constitution that is drawn up by a genuine National Assembly made up of representatives of the people.
DC: So there has to be a new constitution?
ASSK: Yes, I think there has to be a new constitution, but not the one that is being drawn up by SLORC.
DC: In your speech last Saturday (4 May) you were talking about Khun Sa and the fact that he could talk with the SLORC and make a deal, and yet the NLD is completely snubbed. Could you clarify your position?
ASSK: I was just responding to a letter which had come up saying that at one time SLORC said that Khun Sa was a drug dealer and that they would never, never, never, never have any dealings with him. He would simply be treated as a drug runner and would be crushed and annihilated. And here they are on very good terms with Khun Sa, and there are rumors flying around that he even has a house somewhere along here ... Living very comfortably. The letter that came up was signed by somebody who said that he was a member of the armed forces . He said that "we were made to fight Khun Sa and now look at what's happened." So I was just saying that looking at it from one side, this is very bad because one expects a government to honor its word, and one does not expect a government to collaborate with drug runners. But on the other hand, I said it's not so bad because if they can even talk with somebody they declared a drug runner with whom they would never have any dealing, it may establish the possibility that they will also have to change their tune about never talking to the NLD. And I just pointed out that we have never harmed the people of Burma, nor have we ever killed a single member of the armed forces, as Khun Sa and his troops have. If they can come to some agreement with Khun Sa, then there are many, many more reasons why they should be able to come to some agreement with us.
DC: Have they given any indication that they'd like to talk to you?
ASSK: I do not think that they have any intention of opening the kind of dialogue we have in mind, which would have to be substantive political dialogue. I think they now know that the kind of dialogue they had in mind is not possible. I've been asked by some people whether I was not disappointed because SLORC obviously does not have any intention of starting a dialogue with us. I reply no, because I think what they have now recognized is that the kind of dialogue we have in mind will not be possible. So when they finally come around, as they inevitably will have to, to the idea of dialogue to solve the problem of the country, they will understand that there has to be substantive political dialogue.
DC: If there is no dialogue in the impending future, what action is open to the NLD?
ASSK: We are a political movement, not simply a political party, and as with other political movements we continue with our work. We want dialogue, and we think that in the end, eventually there will have to be dialogue. That's the only way through which such situations are resolved, but that does not mean we're just going to sit and wait for a dialogue to drop down into our laps. We continue with our programs. Obviously, we don't talk about our future planning.
DC: How do you view the civil disobedience that's been happening in Bangladesh, and is bringing about change there?
ASSK: Well, they, of course, have a democratic government in place. Perhaps democracy was not a hundred per cent in situ but certainly it was a democratic government and the opposition with the support of enough people to make its movement effective brought about the change that they wanted. This is what happens obviously in democracies, and this is what should be allowed to happen in every country where the willof the people is respected.
DC: In your speeches you've been describing Nelson Mandela's transformation from prisoner to president. . .
ASSK: Actually, I haven't got anywhere near there yet I just started reading about Nelson Mandela last week, so I've only got to the time when he was in Fort Hare.
DC: But I was thinking about the part played by the ANC and that they had a very strong military wing.
ASSK: Yes. Of course, the South African situation was in some ways very much worse than the situation in Burma. Also in some ways it was better. When you consider the state of the black townships in South Africa and the volume and the hatred and the brutalization of the young people, it was far worse than anything that is going on in Burma. But on the other hand, when you consider the white government of South Africa, although their policy of apartheid was not quite human, yet they amongst themselves did practice democracy. The whites had their own democracy and democratically elected government, so they had an understanding of the working of democracy. That was a plus for South Africa, which we, of course, do not have. What we have is a military dictatorship that has no inkling of the workings of democratic process.
DC: Do you think that Burma could become the pariah state that South Africa was in the eighties?
ASSK: There is a movement towards that now, I think from the United States and probably spreading out. The South African government practicing apartheid was seen as a government that was totally against the dictates of justice of the law and I think people are beginning to see the government of Burma in the same light. As a government that has no understanding of the basic concepts of justice and humanity.
DC: Is there a De Klerk figure in Burma who has the vision and the authority to bring about change?
ASSK: Not that we are aware of. At the moment we can't see anybody who can be compared to De Klerk. At one time De Klerk himself was a tremendous hard liner and nobody would have imagined that he would become the bridge to have shown the way for blacks and whites to meet.
DC: In Burma itself the NLD and other people who yearn for democracy can only do so much. Do you think the international community could be doing more?
ASSK: Of course. I think everybody could be doing more, even the people in Burma. I do not believe in dependency. I think people should be self - reliant, so I always try to urge our people to try harder for the changes that they want. They should not rely on others. We ask for, we work for, and we welcome the help and support of the international community. That is only as it should be. We do not intend to live as an isolated nation. Even if we wanted to, we could not in this day and age, so we very much appreciate the support of the international community, and we'd like the international community to do more. We are not putting the responsibility of bringing democracy to Burma on the international community. The main responsibility is ours, but we would like to have the international community soundly behind us.
DC: Do you think the UN should declare Burma's seat vacant and withdraw it from the SLORC?
ASSK: The NLD has not gone as far as considering that question, but we take these things a step at a time, so let's see how things go.
DC: The SLORC perceives the investments that are coming in to Burma as examples of progress towards establishing a modern developed nation. This would appear to be nothing more than image making.
ASSK: Yes, of course, they do not understand what development really means. We like to think of development in terms of development as defined by the UN. It has to be more than just economic growth. In Burma even the economic growth is not as impressive as all that if you have the correct figures.
DC: So you're talking of development tha would benefit the people?
ASSK: It's got to be development that comprises progress on a social and a political front as well as the economic front.
DC: Is a privileged class now forming in Burma?
ASSK: Yes, well, what is going on in Burma is cronyism, the kind of cronyism that flourished in the Philippines under Marcos. When a few people connected to the powers that be got extremely wealthy while the rest of the country got poorer and poorer.
DC: Many of the infrastructure projects now in Burma are being built with forced labor, especially children, building roads and railway embankments. The major benefactors of these are the army, foreign investors, and tourists. What's your opinion on this?
ASSK: There's no way you can make forced labor right. The government tries to justify this by saying that is's not forced labor -- it's volunteer labor and this is part of Burmese tradition. It is part of Burmese tradition to a certain extent in that Burmese kings in the past used forced labor, but it was never voluntarily accepted by the people. The people had no choice because the kings were also dictators. And now, too, we have no choice. I do not buy this kind of agument ... because there used to be slavery in the past, we should go on having slavery because that's part of our tradition.
DC: Do you think that "Visit Myanmar Year 1996" could turn out to be a farce?
ASSK: I think it'll probably turn out to be a flop.
DC: Instead of pursuing their own self enjoyment, should tourists be avoiding coming to Burma?
ASSK: We'd like everyone to boycott "Visit Myanmar Year." I'm not saying that they should not come to Burma, but we would like them to avoid "Visit Myanmar Year" as a clear demonstration of solidarity with the movement of democracy.
DC: Because Burma is basically going to be the same now as . . .
ASSK: It'll be better after democracy.
DC: There are rumors now circulating that the World Bank and the IMF are about to resume issuing loans to Burma to the SLORC.
ASSK: I think they're just rumors.
DC: What of the Japanese Government possibly resuming large - scale ODA?
ASSK: We are not in favor of any government or international organization resuming aid at this moment because we do not think that it will help substantially towards the development of Burma. All it will do is to shore up the power of the military.
DC: Certain insurgent groups have signed cease-fires or have come to terms with the SLORC. What are your thoughts on this?
ASSK: I think cease - fires are a good thing because it does mean fewer people get killed and maimed, but cease - fires are not permanent peace agreements.
DC: And there has to be a political debate?
ASSK: Of course. Unless there is a political settlement of some kind there will never be a permanent peace.
DC: What form of autonomy do you envisage for the nationalities in the future, should democracy come?
ASSK: It is something that will have to be decided through a genuine National Convention in which all the ethnic nationalities will be represented. It is not for us to say this is the form of nation that we want to impose on all the nationalities. So all the nationalities can get together and decide . . . the kind of nation that we want, which will remain united and strong.
DC: What of the independence movements, such as the Karenni, who still hold out for their dream of an independent nation?
ASSK: I think one should talk to them and so should listen to their views and try to understand why they want what they want.
DC: How do you view the Union Solidarity and Development Association after what happened outside of your house on New Year's Day (14 April, 1996)?
ASSK: They're merely an arm of SLORC, and now it's becoming increasingly clear that it is a rather reprehensible arm. It reminds me increasingly of Hitler's brownshirts. On New Year's Day they were told to go and beat up the NLD should the NLD try to go ahead with the fish-releasing ceremony. They're obviously no better than a gang of hooligans.
DC: Regardless of the current economic development, it seems that the majority of the Burmese people are having problems with inflation.
ASSK: Inflation is terrible. At the moment what is really frightening is the price of rice which is so high. This is the time of year when the price of rice should be at its lowest. But it's higher than it has ever been, and it's going to go higher and higher. It's really worrying.
DC: What of the educated people in Burma who cannot find employment, or who wish to leave the country to better themselves and their opportunities?
ASSK: It's inevitable in a nation where the government does not respect education and is afraid of freedom of thought and expression. Educated people have no role to play, no proper role to play. If you are somebody who truly desires knowledge and truly desires using your education, you are forced to go abroad. At the same time, the standard of education in Burma has fallen so low that one hesitates to call some people educated even when they gain their university degree.
DC: What is your opinion on the increasing militarization of Burma, and of how it's becoming too much of a burden on the people to bear?
ASSK: It is very much a burden on the people. It is very foolish, and I think that it is something the region should think about and be concerned about. What are these people gathering arms for? We keep hearing rumors. Burma is a land of rumors. Where there's oppression there are always rumors. We hear rumors that SLORC thinks there's going to be war with Thailand or that America is going to invade. You know, very, very peculiar notions. But I think they're gathering arms in order to crush their own people.
DC: What do you think of the army recruiting boys as young as fourteen?
ASSK: It's disgraceful. I hear that some of them are not even fourteen. I heard recently that some as young as twelve were recruited.
DC: When I visited Meikthila recently to the Burma - Japan World Peace Pagoda, I saw armed soldiers posted for security reasons on the steps of the pagoda. I've also seen this in Mandalay.
ASSK: That gives you a very good idea of the unhappy state we are in when soldiers with guns are found in pagodas, and then claim to have achieved law and order. They claim to have achieved stability and peace within the country. How can they claim that, when they have to post soldiers with guns on the steps of pagodas?
DC: What do you think the activists overseas should be doing?
ASSK: We think 1996 is a crucial year, and because it is a crucial year, I think they should try their best to work unitedly towards a common goal, which would involve keeping investment out of Burma, keeping trade and business out of Burma and making the international community aware of the facts. Development and economic progress can never come to this country unless there is political change.
No comments:
Post a Comment