COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (227)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Once you have this decision- making process you are close to reconciliation. Then you have to look at the degree of concentration of military personnel in civil administration. Is there any due process? The military management style is the three C's: control, command, and communication. They never go beyond the three Cs. I would suggest looking at these specific measures. I don’t expect too much political reform, but I can reasonably expect liberalization in the regime and some civilian participation in decision-making processes. Q: One idea coming out now is that the international community should resume humanitarian aid to Burma. What do you say to this? A: This is a dilemma. You want to give one dollar to the poor people, but you actually end up giving one dollar to the military because there is no transparency in the hard currency budget. You might help people but it will only be in the short term. In the long run, you support the military expansion that continuously generates poverty. So I think that for the time being, except in emergencies, it is unwise to give aid to a country like Burma. But if the government policy shifts to genuine development and the hard currency budget becomes transparent, then it’s fine. (See below) Q: Do you think that international economic sanctions help to foster the transition from military supremacy to development? A: I think it will help produce a policy shift in the military regime. Change won’t come without a crisis. [But for sanctions to have an impact] it will take more time because it is a rigid situation. You cannot expect to impose economic sanctions, and then one or two years later get the results. It won’t happen. If you don’t impose sanction and decide on economic engagement, it means you are engaging with the military, because when you look at investment, almost all joint ventures in the manufacturing sector are with the Myanmar Economic Holdings Company Ltd., which is military-run. I don’t think this engagement will lead to a relaxation of their policy because they will think that theirs is the right policy. [The regime’s approach is] to build strong military institutions in order to make the country strong. But the decision-makers within the regime don’t have any understanding of development, or of economics and trade. So there is a great tendency towards arbitrary decision-making. Supremacy is not stable. I don’t think the present environment is beneficial for the international business community. Q: Do you think the opposition can convince the military or a section of the military that dialogue is the most beneficial option for both sides? A: What I don’t like about both sides is that they both regard each other as the enemy. But I understand that if you are in a conflict, you will feel that way. I think the first step is to stop regarding the other side as your enemy. Whether we like it or not, [both sides are] a part of our body. The military is part of our body, whether it is good or bad. The opposition is also part of our body, whether it is good or bad. We should be kind to ourselves as a country. And you have to recognize that there are different perceptions among the military, the opposition and the international community of what negotiations mean. So we have a communications gap. For example, the ruling elite might think the opposition is threatening their lives, but actually the opposition may not have this idea. There are misunderstandings. We have to explore this. I’d also like to create a situation where both sides can work together, instead of just "negotiating". Sometimes, you think you are different but when you work together you find that you are similar. For the international community, they should take more aggressive steps. What I mean by "aggressive" is that they should do more than just talking about negotiations. They—the major powers—should also bring China into the scenario. Q: Do you think that Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD have been intransigent and confrontational? A: I don’t see any aggressiveness on the part of Suu Kyi or the NLD. I think they are just defending their position, not attacking the government. In a way, they are giving the signals to the government that they recognize the administration. Because if you look at the decisions of the CRPP (Committee to Represent the People's Parliament), you will find that they rectify [only] some of the laws and decrees made by the SPDC military regime. I think they are giving a message: "You recognize me as a legislature, I recognize you as an administration." At the same, they said that they wouldn’t rectify this law or that law. Most of the media in the international community tend to think that Suu Kyi is confrontational. I think she needs some diplomatic skill. But on the other hand, the lack of this diplomatic skill could be part of her legitimacy. As you know, a prominent writer once called her father "Aung San the Wild".