COMMENTS (0)

RECOMMEND (227)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Maybe among some people in politics, there might be an ethnocentric attitude. Maybe, maybe. Historically, when the "We Burman Association" was founded [during the struggle against British colonial rule], "Burman" was defined as all ethnic groups residing in the nation. Now the military government has reversed this definition. They changed Burma to Myanmar. Q: Don't you think it seems pretty patronizing to say that the "We Burman Association" represented the whole nation, including non-Burmans? A: No, in that situation you have to invent a new word. Have you ever heard, in history or in recent history, of an ethnic conflict among people--for example, a Burmese village fighting with a Shan village--for racial reasons? If there is a fight, it is a fight between political groups. We don’t have any conflict at all. I don’t have any knowledge of it. As people, Burmese are not ethnocentric. But if minorities feel [that the Burmese are ethnocentric], it comes from the bureaucracy, not from the people. Q: Do you believe that the recently reported meetings between Aung San Suu Kyi and Khin Nyunt are an important step forward? A: Oh yeah! The meetings will have a great impact not only on the opposition and the military, but also on the whole Burmese political climate. Firstly, meetings between opposing political groups mean civility. In this sense, we can say that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and General Khin Nyunt are bringing civility into our politics, which I think is somewhat militant. Moreover, General Khin Nyunt is introducing this civility into the military hierarchy, which is traditionally deadly rigid and closed. The highest civility in politics is working out a consensus while recognizing differences. In other words, they are taking their first steps on the road to "unity in disunity", a concept quite important for modernization. Secondly, in transitional negotiations, opening communication channels is the rule. Whether it will lead to settlement or not is another problem. There may be ups and downs, but both sides have to maintain that channel. I am hopeful they will. Q: You mentioned that the regime would only liberalize in the event of a crisis. Do you believe that a crisis has occurred prompting the government to open a dialogue? A: When I said that, I didn’t mean only the Burmese military regime. To my knowledge, change happens under two circumstances. The first is if leaders have a learning spirit and are prudent. [The second] is if they are in crisis. In this case, we can sense crisis not only in the military but also in the opposition. I am afraid that some may interpret "in a crisis" to mean "be defeated." I would like to emphasize that although crisis signifies a sort of failure, it doesn’t mean "defeated." Here, I would say that crisis and prudence led to negotiations. Let me quote the chairman of the Communist Party of South Africa, Joe Slovo. He said this at crucial point in the transition process in South Africa, when the ANC was just getting into negotiations [with the apartheid regime]. I think this political line can also be applied to both the NLD and the military. He said: "We are not dealing with a defeated enemy." Now both sides need more prudence than pride.