Hope For the Enemy

[ausgeo@xxxxxxx]

08 Jun 1997 

The Nation 

Hope For the Enemy 


Among many other topics in a new book, Aung San Suu Kyi discusses what is in 
store for Slorc if democracy is achieved. 

The following are extracts from interviews with Aung San Suu Kyi, in Aung San 
Suu Kyi, The Voice of Hope. Conversations with Alan Clements. Published by 
Penguin. Bt297. Available at Asia Books. 

Alan Clements: In examining the crisis in Burma it is so easy to focus on the 
vast divisions between those struggling for democracy ­ the National League 
for Democracy (NLD) ­ and the ones oppressing democracy ­ Slorc. Perhaps it's 
a premature question, but are there actual places of goodwill and trust 
between both sides ­ areas where you can find some sense of genuine 
connection? 

Aung San Suu Kyi: I would like to think there are but we have not been given 
an opportunity to find out. This is why we say that dialogue is so important. 
How can we find out if there are places where we can meet, issues on which we 
can work together, unless we talk to each other? But I heard a rather shocking 
report about an interview with one of the Slorc ministers by a foreign 
journalist. The minister said, 'You can do anything with money. If you hold a 
ten dollar note above a grave, a hand will come out and reach for it. And if 
you held out a hundred dollar note, the whole body would come out.' That seems 
to indicate that they have no principles whatsoever. If they think that 
everyone can be purchased with money, that's a shocking revelation. 

How would you define the collective psychology of Slorc? 

My impression of them as a whole is that they do not know what communication 
means. They don't communicate, either with the people or with the opposition. 
And I wonder whether they even communicate with each other. If everybody in 
Slorc shares this minister's attitude, that money is what decides everything, 
then I have this rather unhappy image of them simply shoving dollar bills at 
each other. 

Many peace settlements are occurring around the world ­ in the Middle East, in 
the former Yugoslavia, possibly in Northern Ireland and of course, the miracle 
that's occurring in South Africa. Slorc has a precious opportunity to follow 
suit ­ a reconciliation could occur. Now, you have repeatedly called for 
dialogue, but what is it that's preventing Slorc from saying 'Daw Aung San Suu 
Kyi, let's say hello, have lunch together, and see where it goes from there?' 

That is exactly what I meant when I said they do not know how to communicate. 
I think they're afraid of dialogue. I think to this day, they do not and 
cannot understand what dialogue means. They do not know that it's a process 
that is honourable, that it can lead to happiness for everybody ­ including 
themselves. I think they still see dialogue as either some kind of competition 
in which they might lose or as a great concession which would disgrace them. 

In South Africa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is leading the Council for Truth and 
Reconciliation. Already, the former defence minister under the apartheid 
regime has been indicted for his complicity in the murder of 13 people while 
in power. Now, if we were to put ourselves in the minds of some of Slorc's 
main players ­ I would think that fear would be a legitimate concern. In other 
words, they have good reason to be insecure. Won't the people seek revenge 
after democracy is won? 

I think here they [Slorc] underestimate both the people and us as a movement 
for democracy. Obviously, there is some hatred among the people, especially 
among those who have suffered. However, we are confident that we can control 
this hatred. But there is no hate among the leaders of the NLD. The 
authorities find this difficult to understand. There are many in Slorc who 
feel strongly against Uncle Kyi Maung, Uncle Tin Oo, and even U Win Htein 
(Aung San Suu Kyi's personal assistant, who spent six years in Insein Prison 
and was re-arrested on 21 May 1996), because they are ex-military men who are 
actively involved in the democratic process. 

I think Slorc's reading of the situation is this: if these men, who themselves 
were in the military, are opposing them, they must be doing so out of 
vindictiveness. I do not think it occurs to them that these ex-military 
officers are supporting the democracy movement because they believe in certain 
principles. It goes back to what I just told you about waving a dollar note 
above a grave: people who think that anybody can be bought, that human minds 
and hearts are mere commodities, subject to the laws of supply and demand, 
such people would not be able to understand other human beings who work for a 
cause and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for that cause. 

Mind you, none of these people we are talking about have done well out of 
joining the movement. They've suffered and their families have suffered, but 
they're still going on. And it's not as though they are unaware that they 
could be subjected to even more suffering. 

Is Ne Win [Burma's ''retired" dictator] really the person you want to open a 
dialogue with? 

I don't know. I really don't know. That is what some people say. But I have no 
hard evidence either for or against the theory that he is still the power 
behind the throne. 

There is a lot of pent-up anger among some people in this country towards the 
Slorc. When, and if your struggle for democracy succeeds, and perhaps you 
assume a major leadership role in a democratic Burma, can you guarantee that 
Slorc will not face criminal charges? 

I will never make any personal guarantees. I will never speak as an individual 
about such things. It is only for the NLD to speak as an organisation ­ a 
group that represents the people. But I do believe that truth and 
reconciliation go together. Once the truth has been admitted, forgiveness is 
far more possible. Denying the truth will not bring about forgiveness, neither 
will it dissipate the anger in those who have suffered. 

Can you envisage a Truth and Reconciliation Council in Burma after she gains 
her freedom? 

I think in every country which has undergone the kind of traumatic experience 
that we have had in Burma, there will be a need for truth and reconciliation. 
I don't think that people will really thirst for vengeance once they have been 
given access to the truth. But the fact that they are denied access to the 
truth simply stokes the anger and hatred in them. That their sufferings have 
not been acknowledged makes people angry. That is one of the great differences 
between Slorc and ourselves. We do not think that there is anything wrong with 
saying we made a mistake and that we are sorry. 

You've said that the core psychological quality which drives a repressive 
authoritarian regime is 'insecurity'. How could someone who fundamentally 
operates from fear, which is really a mistrust of oneself, ever expect to 
bring genuine trust to a truthful dialogue? 

That's a very thought-provoking question. Perhaps what they should try to do 
is to love themselves better. Not in the selfish sense, but to have metta (a 
Buddhist term for loving-kindness) for themselves as well as for others. As 
you put it, if fear is motivated by lack of trust in oneself, it may indicate 
that you think there are things about yourself which are not desirable. I 
accept that there are things about me, as for the great majority of us, which 
are undesirable. But we must try to overcome these things and improve 
ourselves. 

It probably goes without saying, but it seems rather obvious that among many 
Slorc generals, you are dealing with some primitive emotions ­ a stone-age 
level of consciousness ... Are some people just too far gone, that no matter 
what, they remain unredeemable? 

According to Buddhism, there are people whom the Lord Buddha himself could not 
redeem. So who are we to claim that we would be able to redeem everybody? 
Since we don't know who's redeemable and who's not, we have a duty