RECOMMEND (230)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

The pro-democracy forces are particularly mindful of the result of the last elections in 1990, where the NLD won 80 to 85 percent of the seats, and they would like to see that situation restored. So there is frustration that things are not moving fast enough.

Aung San Suu Kyi is still under detention, a number of political prisoners have not been released and there are doubts that the military would actually quit in 2010 as they have said. I think [pro-democracy groups] have these frustrations, as things are not moving as fast as one would have liked. But what is the alternative? What are the tools available to the secretary-general? Because it is not about me—it is about the role of the secretary-general, the good offices role. It is about the role of the General Assembly and it is about the Security Council support and the support of the [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries and some neighboring countries such as India and China. So if I have failed, which some people may have that opinion—I think the mission is continuing and it is too early to draw conclusions—it would have been a failure not of Gambari, but of the secretary-general, Asean, India, China, Japan, the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Q: The government of Burma says that you are taking the side of the pro-democracy movement and the pro-democracy groups say that your mission is a failure. How do you respond to these statements?

A: First of all, it is unfortunate that the government would see it that way, because I have tried my best to be unbiased. If you are a mediator, you have to be impartial. At times, you have to convey messages to both sides that are not always pleasant. So I can see because of the frustrations—the basis of which I have explained—they draw those kinds of conclusion. But I think, with time, they will see the value of mediation, the value of a third-party role, the value of the United Nations and of the secretary-general.

I think, similarly, that the pro-democracy forces should also recognize that we have very limited tools. We are only as effective as the support we get from the member states. This is what they should realize. The target should be the member states that have influence over the government. The pro-democracy forces should try to encourage them to support the good offices role of the secretary-general in more concrete ways and also send the right signals to the authorities in Myanmar to co-operate more with us so that we can achieve our objectives.

Q: Do you also feel frustrated sometimes that things are not moving as expected?

A: Oh, yes! Occasionally, as a human being.

Q: When and why? What frustrates you?

A: For example, I would like very much that restrictions around Aung San Suu Kyi be lifted and that she be freed. I genuinely believe that if she is to be the partner in dialogue—and I do not see an alternative to dialogue—you can’t continue to subject your partner to the same restrictions as before. To me, I see very clearly that she is part of the solution. As long as she continues to be detained, then that would be part of the problem for the authorities.

Secondly, I would like to see the release of more political prisoners, if not all of them. I would like to see the dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the government move to a substantive level, because right now, it is still talks about talks—even that is stalled.

So those are my frustrations. At the same time, I also recognize that the good offices role is a process, so we just have to keep at it. We have to keep pressing with persistence and patience, but also continue to demand tangible results from the process because otherwise it would be waste of my time [and that] of the secretary-general, of the General Assembly and, frankly speaking, of the authorities in Myanmar.

Q: Did you also see this frustration when you met Aung San Suu Kyi?

A: You know something, she is a remarkable woman and she is looking well. Her health is good. She looked better than previous times, certainly better than the first two times I met her. In May 2006 and November [2007], she was not looking good, her health was not good. I raised this issue with the government. They responded by making access to a medical doctor much more regular. She wants me to tell the world that she is in very good spirits. She has not given up. She is hopeful that change will come; she wishes that it would be faster.