Interview

INTERVIEW

Someone Must Always Be in Control

By THE IRRAWADDY Tuesday, October 11, 2011

RECOMMEND (444)

TEXT SIZE

Harn Yawnghwe is the son of Sao Shwe Thaike, who was the last hereditary ruler of the Shan principality of Yawnghwe and the first president of the Republic of the Union of Burma. He was born on April 15, 1948, four months after Burma became an independent nation. After receiving his early education in Burma, he studied in Thailand and then Canada, where he earned a bachelor’s degree and an MBA from McGill University.

Through the years, Harn Yawnghwe has faithfully served Burma’s pro-democracy movement in a variety of capacities. He was editor of Burma Alert, a monthly news digest; advisor to Dr. Sein Win, prime minister of the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), which claims to be Burma’s government in exile; and managing director of the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), which makes daily news broadcasts to Burma in Burmese and seven ethnic languages.

In February 1997, Harn Yawnghwe became director of the Euro-Burma Office in Brussels, Belgium. This joint project between the European Union and the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation was created to help the Burmese democracy movement prepare for a transition to a democratic government.

The Irrawaddy recently spoke with Harn Yawnghwe in an on-line interview about the current political environment in Burma, the status of reforms, the appropriate response of the international community to changes taking place in the country and ongoing challenges faced by the stakeholders.

Harn Yawnghwe. (Photo: Shan Herald Agency for News)

Question: There have been reports suggesting that within Burma’s government and military there are reform-minded and hard-line factions who are at loggerheads, what is your assessment of the situation? Do you think that reformists are gaining ground? Or are the two groups just playing a game of good cop/bad cop with the opposition and international community?

Answer: It is not a clear cut case of reformed-minded liberals against hard-liners. The situation may appear that way when analyzed through a theoretical framework. That is why in 2004, Gen Khin Nyunt was seen as a liberal by some analysts. It is also not a case of good cop/bad cop. We should not fool ourselves, the Tatmadaw (Burmese armed forces) does not really care about either the opposition or the international community. Gen Ne Win seized power in 1962 because the Tatmadaw believed that U Nu was losing control. When Ne Win lost control in 1988, the Tatmadaw seized power again.

The key concept is that someone (the Tatmadaw) must always be in control to protect Burma’s independence, sovereignty and national unity. The Seven-step Roadmap was supposed to bring in a strong government with a strong Tatmadaw on standby. To protect himself, Snr-Gen Than Shwe deviated from the script and handed over power to a weak party, a weak president, a weak vice-president, a weak Parliament and a weak Tatmadaw. As a retired senior general, President Thein Sein could not let this situation persist. He had to exert control and he chose to do so through the framework of the 2008 Constitution. The disagreements we are seeing are not ideological. They are personal, because some of the others do not like the idea of U Thein Sein being the supremo. They want to be the supremo themselves.

Having a strong government that can exert control is not a bad thing in itself. All governments, even democratic ones like the US, have to be in control. Otherwise, there would be anarchy. The question is how does one decide who will be in control and how is that control exercised? If it is through the popular will, the rule of law and persuasion, it is perfectly acceptable. But if it is through the force of arms, it is not acceptable. Therefore, while some people may question President U Thein Sein’s legitimacy, the methods he is using are quite acceptable.

The other difference is that unlike Snr-Gen Than Shwe, U Thein Sein seems to be aware that for Burma to survive as a nation in the modern world, urgent reforms are needed. He is not a liberal, but he wants to make sure that his government is in control and able to protect Burma’s interests (against other nations and big business).

Will his reforms succeed? That is still an open question.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 next page »

COMMENTS (14)

Myanmar Patriots Wrote:

18/10/2011

To Eastern European Observer,

Burmese people do not understand why the problems of Burma had persisted; rooted in colonial PAST. Unwise of you to meddle in Burma without knowing that Burma started as a kingdom 3000 years ago by a prince of the Buddha line at a place called Tagaung; 'oh-so-liberal' Bamars keep denigrating their own history sucking up to coloniser'S VERSION. Burmese kings never persecuted so-called ethnic minorities, e.g, Kachins Duwas were part of the monarchical system responsible for local administration under the monarch. Likewise there were Shan nobles with hereditary titles. They should be appointed to the Royal Myanmar Council, counterpart of the Privy Council of UK. Understand? Not a stupid idea. That is the way to unity, peace and equality. Fragmenting Burma is sheer treason.

Eastern European Observer Wrote:

14/10/2011

I wish that the ethnic Burmese people would regain their freedom, yet I doubt it will happen any time soon. Rebels controlling uninhabitable terrain is a noble cause, yet it doesn't help the villages, the infrastructure, the economy. Similar ethnic rebel groups have existed in Poland, Croatia, Belarus, the Baltic countries, Yugoslavia, Hungary and many others.

Poland was the only example that managed to defeat the Russians in 1921, only to get under the communist rule in 1945 again. Ethnic Burmese groups should either cooperate or try to obtain freedom through diplomacy. Defeating a regime that is the second producer of heroin in the world is impossible, especially when the international community doesn't care about Burma.

Min Nway Wrote:

14/10/2011

A Dictator is A dictator. A new Dictator was chosen by an old Dictator not by people.
Thein Sein changed his cloth but not his attitude. He showed his attitude yesterday.
We should not expect too much from him.

He will give order to kill if people demonstrate for Democracy just like in Syria.

I am so upset that now our hope of getting true Democracy is gradually fading.

I am so sad for those who lost their lives for Democracy in Burma and those who were still in jails.

Shwe Aung Wrote:

13/10/2011

Why European countries need EU? They want to confront USA and others' economic and military powers if needed. Asian countries are divided so that all Asian countries need helps from either EU or USA or alike.
Asian Union should be established so that Asian countries will not be controlled by US$, euro, or military might.

Myanmar Patriots Wrote:

13/10/2011

Reforms will succeed! With our full support.

Dabetswe Wrote:

13/10/2011

Philip G Collier Wrote:

"I find Mr. Yawnghwe's statements that "President U Thein Sein’s methods are quite acceptable" and that "someone must always be in control" contrary to the ideals of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."."

--I think each country will eventually come to her own way of democracy. I've lived in Singapore, a democratic country, and you can't say it's "democratic" by standards of USA. Yet, the system there works (and doesn't work, but then there are some things that don't work for the people in USA either) for their people.

I'm hoping that Burma, my motherland, will find a way to have her own version of democracy that works for the people and rulers. As long as it allows for the health and wealth of the country and all her people, it doesn't matter how the government looks like.

Moe Aung Wrote:

13/10/2011

Not sure if any one recognizes "a weak party, a weak president, a weak vice-president, a weak Parliament and a weak Tatmadaw...Thein Sein could not let this situation persist."

The unmistakable weakness in all this is the deceit and coercion forming the foundation of the whole edifice, made to last as far as they are concerned. And outwardly Thein Sein may seem to write his own script but does he not report to his boss Than Shwe?

Harn Yawnghwe's ruling class upbringing may put a greater emphasis on control at the expense of democratic freedoms which his own people are fighting for. We are quite aware of course that ideological differences do not matter half as much as jockeying for position among the generals. Is the reform minded president for real?

Ko Chin Taung Wrote:

13/10/2011

What do we mean by the concept of strong government? Military might? Economic power? or strong System that guarantee freedom and security for it's individual citizens. I don't neither believe in the concept a strong government for a handful of people at the expense of the common people nor the concept that ensure the well being of the majority without defending the rights of minorities and individuals.

Anarchy is another matter and can't mix up with strong government concept. For example, the recent riot in UK doesn't imply a weak government. Federal democratic system is a strong system when individuals and ethnic groups are given freedom and equal rights in building the nation.

Soe Thane Wrote:

13/10/2011

Bob wrote:

It is all very sad. A beautiful country with amazing potential being held down by gangs of criminal bullies.

Which country did you mean? Thailand? Cambodia? Or the US? Oligarchy, corruption, political prisoners, etc are not unique to Burma. How many political prisoners are in Guantanamo? Far more than there are in Burma.

Not to say things in Burma shouldn't change. But lots of do-gooders should also start by trying to do some good in their own back yard.

KML Wrote:

12/10/2011

We can see tangible changes under President U Thein Sein’s rule. If we take it with optimistic view, we need to give some time. We don’t want this initiative shattered like the visionary reform carried out by Crown Prince Kanaung in mid-19th Century. There is long list of priority for the President to fix in a short time frame to match people’s expectations.

While President U Then Sein and people like U Aung Kyi coming with olive branch, other ministers need to be polite too. Answers of Immigration Minister on Rohingya and Irrigation Minister on land confiscation in Minbya, Myebon & Kyaunk Phyu needed to be satisfactory to the electorate. Rude diplomat Ye Myint Aung should also be removed from UN frontline representing Burma.

Anyway listening to people of Burma is right move (like Myitsone dam) and release of 6000 + prisoners are undeniably positive steps. Hope Mr U Kyaw Min, MP (NDPHR, Buthidaung) will also be released.

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-017-2009

Philip G Collier Wrote:

12/10/2011

I find Mr. Yawnghwe's statements that "President U Thein Sein’s methods are quite acceptable" and that "someone must always be in control" contrary to the ideals of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." A government that does not respect it's citizens' will has no legitimacy.

The people of Burma / Myanmar should long ago have been governing themselves in a representative, participatory system.

Mualcin Wrote:

12/10/2011

It is so sad that there is corruption even among the people who cry loud enough for democracy. Is corruption the Burmese way of life? We need to stop this horrible habit.

tocharian Wrote:

12/10/2011

Forget about "personal power and glory". Stop fighting each other about money and control. Get rid of Chinese-style corruption (bribery) and coercion (bullying).

If this goes on Burma will lose its sovereignty as an independent nation and become the next Chinese colony, like Tibet or Sinkiang, overrun by Chinese immigrants.

I was born in Burma the year before Burma gained its independence from the British. I prefer to die before Burma becomes a Chinese colony!

Bob Wrote:

12/10/2011

It is all very sad. A beautiful country with amazing potential being held down by gangs of criminal bullies.