| By KYAW ZAW, GEN | Monday, December 1, 2003 |
Gen Kyaw Zaw, 84, alias Thakin Shwe, is one of the founders of the Tatmadaw, or Burma’s armed forces. He is one of the Thirty Comrades who went to Japan for military training in 1941. He joined the Communist Party of Burma (CPB) in 1944 and was elected to the Central Committee a year later. In 1956, he was accused of leaking news to the CPB and forced to leave the army. He served as Vice Chief of General Staff of the CPB until the 1989 mutiny. In written correspondence with The Irrawaddy, Kyaw Zaw discussed Burma’s past and the lessons it holds for the country’s future. Question: Soon after you and your comrades gained independence for Burma, the country plunged into civil war. What went wrong? Answer: Civil war erupted because of the disintegration of national unity. At the time, there were three main parties in Burma’s politics, the Communist Party of Burma (CPB), the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) and the People’s Volunteer Organization (PVO). The AFPFL was dominated by socialists and was also known as the Socialist Party. These socialists did not enjoy enough support from the people and they could not compete with the CPB among the masses. But it was the main party controlling politics. So they drove the communists into the jungle, labeled them "insurgents" and handed power to the Tatmadaw (Burma’s armed forces). These socialists also organized Ne Win to become their stooge. When the army was dominated by socialists, they started to oppress the CPB, who had no choice but to resist with the few arms they got, out of self-defense. Thus, the civil war erupted because of the inability to build a country on the foundation of democracy. National unity disintegrated with all the consequences, such as the PVO and some ethnic groups going underground, which added fuel to the flames. The socialists, who depended on the imperialists and the army, created the civil war. U Kyaw Nyein, who led the Socialist Party and was Home Minister, was the number one culprit who caused the civil war of Burma. Q: You were close to Gen Aung San, the father of Burma’s independence. His death changed the course of the country’s future. If he was not assassinated, what would Burma’s fate have been? A: If Bogyoke [General] Aung San was not assassinated then a modern Burma with democratic foundations would have been built. National unity would have been maintained and civil war would have been prevented. Plus, in achieving independence, he would have tried to have both political independence and economic independence so much so that a prosperous Burma could emerge. And a people’s army, protecting the people’s lives, would have been built. All these expectations disappeared with his assassination. The army he founded has changed into an army protecting the military dictatorship. Because of that the whole country has suffered all sorts of misery. Q: There are still unanswered questions concerning the assassination of Aung San. Some historians have argued the British were behind it. Do you think any British officials were involved in the assassination or encouraged U Saw to kill Aung San? A: I always believed that the British were behind the assassination of Bogyoke in one way or another. [Editor’s note: The full text of a BBC interview with Kyaw Zaw on the 50th anniversary of Martyr’s Day (July 19, 1999) was published as a book, titled Who is the Real Culprit? Q: Unification has been a thorny issue since Burma gained independence. The first leaders of independent Burma did not trust each other and were always divided. Communists and ethnic groups were also a source of trouble. Are hopes that the country can become unified and different groups in Burma can learn to trust each other unfounded? A: I have always believed and hoped that the country can be unified and all the different groups in Burma can trust each other. One day, we will all build our country into a unified, prosperous and peaceful country. That day will definitely come. Q: Would you summarize the legacy of the "Thirty Comrades"? A: The "Thirty Comrades" founded the Tatmadaw and fought against the British to get independence. They resisted the Japanese and drove them away. In short, they were the main leadership force throughout the struggle for independence, particularly, the anti-imperialist struggle and anti-fascist resistance. It is notable that among the "Thirty Comrades" there was Bogyoke Aung San, who worked selflessly for his country and sacrificed himself; and there was Ne Win, who set up the military dictatorship which still brings misfortune to the country. Q: Would you share the lessons you have learned regarding the issue of autonomy for ethnic groups, which has persisted in Burma since the struggle for independence? A: I strongly believe that if we can build complete and genuine national unity, the other issues such as ethnic issues can be solved satisfactorily. Q: You were forced to leave the Burma Army after being accused of leaking information to the communists. What did you hope to achieve by leaving for the China border to join the Communist Party of Burma (CPB)? A: I became a Communist Party member in 1944. In 1945, at the second Congress of the CPB, I was elected a Central Committee Member. So, when I came and joined CPB in 1976, I was just coming back home. I couldn’t work for my cause in the urban area anymore because of the military government. So, to continue my service to my people and my country, I went underground. Q: What were the problems with the CPB that led to its collapse? What were the problems among the leadership? A: In 1989, the CPB suffered a great setback because of internal disintegration. On account of this event, our party has already published a self-critical document. Everything’s there. Q: In the late 1950s and early 1960s, did you get the sense that Gen Ne Win had political ambitions? A: Ne Win had political ambitions to become the second man after Bogyoke Aung San from a very early period. Q: As one of the founders of the Tatmadaw, do you believe the armed forces had a professional foundation from the beginning, given the fact that the Tatmadaw came into existence after troops received training from the Japanese? A: It is true that the Tatmadaw came into existence after troops received training from the Japanese. But it was founded on the basis of anti-imperialism. When the BIA (Burma Independence Army) was founded in 1941, the Tatmadaw leaders, such as Bogyoke Aung San, Bo (Lieutenant) Letya and Bo Yang Aung, were all communists. In successive armies, such as the BNA (Burma National Army) and PBF (Patriotic Burmese Forces), there were many new communist party members. The PBF was founded on the basis of resisting the Japanese. After independence, if a democratic political system was well protected there would have been no civil war and the Tatmadaw would not have been changed into a military dictatorship’s army. It was not because of lack of professional foundation that the Tatmadaw changed its position. Q: How do you view today’s Tatmadaw? A: Today’s Tatmadaw has changed into a professional mercenary army. Today’s army leaders only aim and work to protect and maintain the military dictatorship. They just want to dominate and exploit the country in all aspects. They only consider holding the power for themselves, no matter what happens to the people and the country. There are some patriotic people in the army too. But there is no leader to organize and unify them. Q: Current military leaders praise the Tatmadaw’s role in the independence movement, saying it was the generals that delivered Independence, not the politicians. Do you think their claim is valid? How do you analyze the role of the Tatmadaw in the struggle for independence? A: No, that is not true. The Tatmadaw had a leading role in the independence movement. But that Tatmadaw was originally founded by politicians and students. Besides, in the independence movement, the political struggles, such as strikes and rallies, played a major role too. When these two tactics—the role of the Tatmadaw and the political struggle—combined and coordinated, independence was delivered. Q: What role do you think Aung San Suu Kyi has had in changing modern Burma? Would you make some comparisons between Aung San Suu Kyi and her father, Gen Aung San? A: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the legitimate leader of the whole country according to the results of 1990 elections. She enjoys the full support of the whole people of Burma, including the ethnic minorities. She gets tremendous support from the international community and she sacrifices a lot for the people and the country. She has great potential as a political leader. So, in changing modern Burma, she must have a principal role in the leadership. There is very great similarity between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her father. Both of them love the people of Burma sincerely, seriously and deeply and they are always ready to sacrifice whatever they have for the cause. Q: Do you still hope to go back to Burma? What is your assessment of the current political situation? A: I always wish and believe that I’ll be back one day. For the time being, the situation is very difficult as we have to struggle against a ruthless and stubborn military dictatorship. The route will be difficult, prolonged and complicated. The struggle will be harsh. There will be a lot of losses and sacrifices. Yet, at last, we will win. The military dictatorship will definitely fall. A new, democratic Burma will surely emerge. Q: Do you think Burmese people are passive in nature? Do you agree with the argument that the Burmese get the government they deserve? A: I never agree with that argument. We Burmese are not passive in nature. But as traditional Buddhist people, we are tolerant to some extent. But to get a deserved government, the people will have to struggle for themselves, courageously, ceaselessly and collectively. Now, our struggle hasn’t finished yet.