[vinnomot] Interview: “We would like to see the transition to a democratic government”:Thant Myiny-U

SAN-Feature Service

SOUTH ASIAN NEWS-FEATURE SERVICE

October 24,2007

 

Interview: "We would like to see the transition to a democratic government":Thant Myiny-U

 

We would like to see the transition to a democratic government. It is important to get the regional countries on board. The question is: what is the aim on which India, China and the U.S. will agree?

 

SAN-Feature Service :Thant Myint-U, 41, grandson of the former United Nations Secretary-General U. Thant, was in New Delhi this week, having recently completed The River of Lost Footsteps, an account of the rise and fall of Burma from a historian's perspective. He worked with the U.N. for a decade, and also teaches history at Cambridge University. He is a frequent visitor to Myanmar (Burma). An interview with Sandeep Dikshit.

 

Question : The movement for democracy has been suppressed, but the regime is making overtures to the pro-democracy elements. How do you see the future of Myanmar?

 

Thant Myint-U :  In some ways, the situation is grim. There has been a political stalemate for almost 20 years. There are few signs that the military regime is interested in any meaningful transition to democracy.

 

At the same time, one has to be aware that the country is changing fast. It is not the same as in the 1980s. The environment is very different. That is good and bad, and the situation is very unpredictable.

 

The regime's supporters say it has struck peace with the ethnic groups. This could not be achieved by the last democratic leader U. Nu, who was a close friend of Jawaharlal Nehru.

 

In some ways that has happened. But it has not really been a process to turn the ceasefire into sustained peace. Internally, there is no movement in that direction. It is still a country at civil war. True, the ceasefire is welcome, but we are still far from a settlement that will bring sustainable peace.

 

Q: India's perspective is closer to that of China and different from the West. How do you acknowledge India's sensitivities?

 

A: The situation for China and India is very different. On the Chinese side, there has been peace and tranquillity. China has also played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the ceasefire. It has nudged the insurgents and the government to negotiate.

 

On the Indian side, the situation is more complicated — there are insurgents on both sides.

 

Q: With these imperatives, does India have leverage over policies in Myanmar?

 

A: My guess is that outside influence may not be enough to move the regime forward on political reforms. But it can help move the regime on other issues such as economic reforms and humanitarian issues. On some of these issues it has enough leverage to make a positive impact.

 

Q: While Aung San Suu Kyi's party [the National League for Democracy] wants democracy established immediately, the military would not want to be stripped of power immediately, after having ruled for decades. What are your views?

 

A: The NLD is very clear about its aim. There can be some change in the human rights issue. Beyond that, the aim is unrealistic as far as institutional democracy is concerned. They should aim at some sort of meaningful transition process. It will take several years. The army should play a meaningful role in economic reforms, human rights and poverty alleviation — these are all interlinked. We can't move first to democracy. We have to address these three issues.

 

Q: While the U.S. has applied more sanctions, India believes they will not affect the regime. It will pass on their impact to the people. What do you think of the Indian position?

 

A: It is true. There is a fundamental difference between using sanctions as a pressure point and as a diplomatic process. The U.S. has been keeping sanctions for 20 years. What has been the diplomatic process to include all the relevant countries in the international community? Is the aim to democratise, or regime change? Till one is clear about the process, it is pointless to argue whether sanctions can be useful as a tactic. Sanctions as a longstanding policy are counterproductive.

 

Q: What is your aim?

 

A: We are very clear that we support the democracy movement. We would like to see the transition to a democratic government. It is important to get the regional countries on board. The question is: what is the aim on which India, China and the U.S. will agree? As long as these countries are pulling in different directions, international influence will be ineffective.

 

Q: Do you think there is a stalemate?

 

A: The army had promised to hold polls and transfer power. If one stands on a promise made 20 years ago, one has to argue against that. We have to look real — we have to move to a better political situation, where there is democracy, but also tackle the extreme poverty, end the conflict. The focus on the NLD and the government is something that will lead us to effective policies for change. But the big part of the missing picture is conflict. The economic picture is missing as well.

 

In the recent protests, people were desperate to escape poverty. There was also a political reason. The regime is slightly open on economic reforms. We have to look at it creatively.

 

Q: What do you mean by economic reforms? Does it mean flooding the market with Western consumer goods, or is it something different?

 

A: The government changed the policy in the early 1990s by being favourable to trading and investment. But a mix of poor economic management, huge spending on the armed forces and sanctions has developed a political economy that benefits only a few.

 

A big change in Burma's economic picture has been the discovery of oil and gas. Will the money be used for health and education, or on defence? This will determine where Burma will be 20 years from now.

 

India can encourage macro-economic reforms. That would not encourage political freedom but is equally important. The present focus on political reform and the lack of international consensus is moving the country in a worse direction.

 

Q: What will be your contribution?

 

A: People were looking at a historical perspective. My book [The River of Lost Footsteps] gives that. That is my contribution. It is very difficult to help from outside. Also, the regime distrusts civilians educated outside [the country]. --SAN-Feature Service

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___