Nay Pyi Taw, 21 July
Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services Senior General Min Aung Hlaing gave an interview to Mr.Jonah Fisher of BBC News Agency (Myanmar program) at Bayintnaung villa here on 17 July at 4 pm. The following is the interview.
Has the Myanmar army changed during this period of reform that’s been experienced here? And if it has changed how has it changed?
Since 2011 we have been doing some reforms to the military with the aim of being a standard army, a professional army. The Myanmar army was previously formed to respond to local insurgencies and based on that experience the army developed into a force to defend the country. But we haven’t achieved that aim yet. Now we are trying to become a modern army and we are trying to improve the well being of military personnel and improve the training of quality too. To conclude we are building a skillful and a powerful army.
Is the army committed to the reforms that we’ve seen here over the last four or fifi ve years? And if it is - perhaps you can answer the question as to why the reforms were started - why was it decided that change was needed?
The country is now on the path towards a multi party democracy system. In the past the military was in charge of the country since 1962 when the revolutionary council came. In 1974 a socialist programme party lead the country and even at that time the military shared some duties with the party. After the 1988 uprising the military had to take a leading role. So the military has always been involved in a leadership role. Now after 2011 the country is moving towards multi party democracy and there have been some duties given to us constitutionally. So we can only act within that constitutional duty. So every is performing their own role. The military is doing the duty it has been given.
I’d like to add one thing. According to the constitution, the legislature, the administration and the judiciary have oversight over each other. So the role of the military has also been described in the legislation. So the essence of democracy is to act in a lawful way. So the military is acting according to their legal role. This the path chosen by the people. We the military act according to that will. So we are forced to follow the role given to us by law to be a model for others.Why do you believe the Myanmar army needs to be so involved in politics?
It’s a long history. We got independence in 1948 and before that we were a British colony. After 1948 independence there were ethnic insurgencies and there was also a foreign invasion crisis - with the Kuomintang invading our country between 1948 and 1950. So the Myanmar army worked together with the people to respond to the ethnic insurgencies and the foreign invasion. Since that time the military has been taking charge of the insurgencies. So we used parliamentary democracy at that time (1948) due to the split between political groups and the ethnic insurgencies the country became unstable and finally power was handed over to a caretaker government in 1958.
But there was an election again and power was handed over to an elected government but the political situation remained unstable and finally in 1962 the country was deteriorating to the worst situation and the military finally took over as a revolutionary council. During that time from 1962-1974 the military was trying to restore the country when the socialist programme party came to power. Even in those times the country was at peace and stable and again the military had to take care and handle those problems together with the people. In 1974 the socialist programme party came to power and the government wasn’t stable yet - we still had many problems. Despite peace talks at the time many of them failed and there were still ethnic insurgencies. So the army again had to take care all of those things together with the people.
In 1988 the country was failing economically and in every sector. Politically and economically it was failing and people were demanding a multiparty democracy system and the government at the time could not fulfill the people’s desire. Then the military had to become involved again. From 1988 to 2011 a military government was in charge of the country trying to restore peace and stability while trying to draft a constitution as well. We were laying the foundations for democracy. In 2008 the constitution was approved we had an election in 2010 and in 2011 we handed over to the winning party. But we’re still doing reforms at the moment. So if we look at that time 1948 to 2011 the role of the military can’t be separated from the history of this country. Even to achieve the current situation the military had to sacrifi ce blood and sweat with the people. We fought for independence and now we work to protect it. We are protecting the territorial integrity of the country and bringing peace and stability. So we the military sacrifice blood and sweat to achieve all these things so we cannot to lerate any attempt that will threaten them. That’s why I’d like to say the military is still involved (in politics) to achieve peace and stability.
Just thinking about peace and stability - why has it proved so diffificult to achieve a nationwide ceasefifire agreement?
The first priority of the army is everlasting peace. We are right now on the path to multi party democracy we no longer have a military system or a single party system. So accordingly we have to act democratically. So that’s why ethnic groups need to have a genuine desire for peace and they must be able to move onto a democratic track. I don’t think at this moment the ethnic groups should demand for power and sovereignty by keeping their guns. In the peace process first there has to be a ceasefire and then move onto a democratic track and they should no longer hold on to their arms as a means of wielding power. Move on to the peaceful track legally.
It is true that we the army took power - but as we explained at the time we took it legally and then we governed legally. So if they (ethnic armies) accept all this then a ceasefire will happen. I hope a ceasefire will happen.
And I’d like to mention that they need to trust us as well. We need to trust them too. These things can only happen when there is trust. We explained then that we give equal rights to them in ethnic affairs. According to the law there is also equal rights for all citizens so we are not discriminating against anybody. As I explained just then - they need to trust and believe in what I say. So if they believe in this thing then the process will be successful. And I stress that. If they demand their rights legally I think the peace process will go through easily.
The army recently voted in parliament to keep it’s veto over constitutional change. Would you like to see the army’s political power reduced at some point. And is there any time frame for that stepping back from politics?
In the constitutional reform process we voted according to the article 12 as described in the constitution - we can’t call it a veto. Regarding the constitution - no one has a perfect one. Our constitution might have some parts that need to be amended - I don’t deny that. There’s a constitution in countries such in India, Thailand, USA, and they also amend it legally. So accordingly we have to amend it legally. Some clauses can’t be amended because of the situation of the country. So some clauses can’t be amended and some can - so to respond to your question there could be some clauses that could be amended. As I explained earlier about the political situation of this country and ethnic armed insurgencies. Depending on those two factors we can see how much peace and stability we have - and how much security there is. The nationwide ceasefire agreement depends on these things - and after the nationwide ceasefire agreement we will move forward to political dialogue and after that we will have some agreement. We will have to keep going up until there is disarmament and demobilisation and reintegration. At that point the government can give some security to it’s people - and then I’m sure military will stay in a military role. But to have a time frame for that depends on the situation - it could be 5 years or ten years I couldn’t say. But what’s sure is that when we get to that situation I can assure the military will stay in it’s own role. It all depend the results of talks.
But from us - from our side we’d like to see it as quickly as possible. I’d like to go to the best situation of the country. The will of the army is first the stability of the country - then development. There has been criticism of us that the country has not developed and no stability in the past 60 years - but here i’d like to stress again it all depends on the situation I mentioned earlier.
What you’re saying is until there is a lasting peace agreement with all the ethnic armed groups here in Myanmar there can be no real discussion of the military taking a step back from politics?
Yes it’s rather difficult. It is impossible to leave people with all these problems and without real security. We worked hard to get to this situation and its a very difficult task. We are trying our best. And our president has also been working hard for the peace process I know it. I understand well his opinion. Ethnic rights can only move forward if we get peace. Moreover we have still got many difficulties in political reforms - I’d like to urge that these things move forward in a disciplined way. This is something we have to overcome.
There is going to be a historic general election in November of this year. Do you expect that election to be free and fair and when the result is announced - do you expect that result to be respected by everyone?
First of all I believe the election will be free and fair. That is our true wish. We are committed to helping make that happen - anyway we can. When the election commission announces the result we have to respect it. Because it will have been democratically done. So we are also going to vote and we are also going to respect the results when they are announced.I used to say we have to act rightfully in our move to democracy - I said earlier we have to accept anyone.
But there’s one thing we need to be careful of - for instance we need to be careful in the unstable regions where there’s conflict. The election process needs to be done fairly there as well. But in the rest there will competition between parties - the people demanded this democratic system and we are trying to meet that desire. If we don’t respect this - people will think badly of the military. This is my personal belief.
(To be continued.)
#Themyawadydaily
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment