[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6250-S6251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AUNG SAN SUU KYI

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the most impressive political 
leaders in our world today is the courageous Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, 
who has quietly, consistently but firmly, stood for democracy for 
Burma, now called Myanmar by its present leaders, but still called 
Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi.
  The military government there which still does not permit free 
assembly or a multiparty system, or other things that democracies take 
for granted, to its credit, has released Aung San Suu Kyi from house 
arrest.
  Recently, the Los Angeles Times published an interview with her by 
Scott Kraft, which said something about her courage and her country.
  I particularly like his question ``How does it feel to be a free 
citizen?'' She replied:

       I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I feel 
     like a free citizen in an unfree country. I appreciate the 
     opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is what our 
     work is all about.
       You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under 
     house arrest because it was my choice. I chose to do what I'm 
     doing and because of that, I found peace within myself. And I 
     suppose that is what freedom is all about.

  I ask that the Los Angeles Times article be printed in the Record.
  The article follows:

 Aung San Suu Kyi--Striving to Build a Democracy Amid the Harsh Regime 
                               of Myanmar

                            (By Scott Kraft)

       Aung San Suu Kyi had a rigid routine during the six years 
     she spent under arrest in her family's lakeside home. She 
     would rise at 4:30 a.m. for exercise and meditation, then 
     spend the day reading biographies or autobiographies and 
     listening to the radio. The only human being she would see 
     was the maid.
       Though free for eight months now, she still spends most of 
     her days in that two-story house. But the 1991 Nobel Peace 
     Prize winner is hardly isolated. Two appointments 
     secretaries, one for foreign dignitaries and the other for 
     fellow party members, have guided thousands of visitors to 
     meet her.
       ``I'm afraid I can no longer keep to a strict timetable,'' 
     Suu Kyi says. ``I can't get up at 4:30 anymore because there 
     are times I don't get to bed until 2 a.m. If I got up early, 
     I wouldn't be able to operate full-steam for 12 hours.''
       Many here hoped her release was a first step toward 
     democracy in Myanmar. But the military regime, which 
     nullified her party's victory in the 1990 elections, still 
     runs the country. It is stage-managing a constitutional 
     convention while trying to attract foreign investment.
       Suu Kyi is biding her time and rebuilding her party 
     network. Her weekdays are filled with appointments and on 
     weekends, hundreds of supporters gather outside the gated 
     compound to hear her speak and answer their questions. Soon, 
     she says, the government will come to its senses.
       Even as the government tries to ignore her, Suu Kyi, 50, 
     remains the most-respected political figure in Myanmar. Her 
     father, Aung San, is considered, even by her detractors, as 
     the greatest hero of Burmese independence. He was 
     assassinated in 1947, when she was 2.
       Suu Kyi left Burma in 1960, at age 15, and later received a 
     degree from Oxford University. She married a Briton, Michael 
     Aris, who is now a professor and specialist in Tibetan 
     studies at Oxford. In 1988, she returned to Burma to tend to 
     her ailing mother and became a leader of the pro-democracy 
     movement.
       Aris and the couple's two sons, Kim, 18, and Alexander, 22, 
     who are in school abroad, usually visit Suu Kyi at holidays, 
     as they did during her years of house arrest, if the 
     government grants them visas. Suu Kyi is prevented from 
     leaving Myanmar only by the certainty that she would never be 
     allowed to return.
       In person, Suu Kyi is low-key and polite, though her 
     determination is evident. She always refers to the country as 
     Burma and the capital as Rangoon, purposefully ignoring the 
     government decree that this nation be called Myanmar and the 
     city, Yangon.
       She meets visitors at home in a square room surrounded by 
     1940s-era photographs of her family and a wall-sized painting 
     of her father. ``The painting is a bit Andy Warhol, don't you 
     think?'' she says, ``But it's really a very good likeness.''
       Q. How would you assess the eight months since you've been 
     released? What are the positive developments and the 
     disappointments?
       A. Well, in politics, I don't think you ever get 
     disappointed as such. It's an occupational hazard that things 
     don't always turn out as you would wish them to. You hope for 
     the best and prepare for the worst. That's politics.
       The most positive aspect of things since my release is the 
     fact that our party has become far more active. We've been 
     reorganizing and reconsolidating. We've been subjected to a 
     lot of restrictions. There continue to be intimidations and 
     harassment.
       But we still have the strong support of the people and we 
     manage to get along with our party building.
       Q. Many in the West thought that when you were released, 
     everything would begin to improve.
       A. I don't think it's as simple as that. There are some 
     people who say I was released because the government thought 
     the National League for Democracy was dead. But in fact, it 
     is far from dead. There have been miscalculations like that 
     in the past by this government.
       In the 1990 elections, the government thought we might win 
     a plurality but not an absolute majority. In fact, we got 
     82%, with the result that those elections have been totally 
     ignored and our members persecuted.
       Q. So you aren't disappointed in the slow pace of change?
       A. I wouldn't say ``disappointed'' is the word. There is so 
     much happening within our party that it does compensate for 
     what is not happening on the other side.
       Of course, we know that the best thing for the country is 
     national reconciliation, which can only take place through 
     dialogue. And we hope that it will take place sooner rather 
     than later. But that doesn't mean we just sit and hope. We 
     have other work to do and we carry on.
       Q. So you aren't impatient with the pace of things?
       A. If you are very busy, you have no time to be impatient. 
     If you ask us when do we want democracy, well, we want it 
     now, of course, I feel just as strongly about that as anybody 
     else. But because we are so occupied with our numerous jobs, 
     we are not that impatient.
       Q. Do you think the current constitutional conference, in 
     which your party is not participating, is a step in the right 
     direction?
       A: No. That constitution is not headed for democracy. In 
     the first place, they are not allowing political parties to 
     operate effectively, and without political parties operating 
     effectively there can be no multiparty democracy.
       The constitution they are writing really doesn't mean 
     anything. A constitution is just a piece of paper unless it 
     has the support of the people, and many a country has gone 
     through many a constitution that is unacceptable to the 
     people. Such constitutions do not last.
       Q: So what can you do to get this government to change 
     direction?
       A: It is the will of the people that the country should 
     become a democracy, and I'm sure the people will join me in 
     guiding the country to its democracy. We will do what we can 
     as a legally registered party. We will use political means of 
     reaching our goal. This is our constant.
       Q: So you are talking about passive resistance.
       A: We don't really believe that the way to bring about 
     democracy is by encouraging popular uprisings. We believe 
     that democracy will come through the strength of the 
     political will of the people, expressed through political 
     parties.
       Q: How does it feel to be a free citizen?
       A: I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I 
     feel like a free citizen in an unfree country. I appreciate 
     the opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is what 
     our work is all about.
       You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under 
     house arrest because it was my choice. I chose to do what I'm 
     doing and because of that, I found peace within myself. And I 
     suppose that is what freedom is all about.
       Q: Do you think that it is possible the government thought 
     it could make you a nonperson by releasing you?
       A: Sounds likely, doesn't it? Yes, it seems likely.
       Q: The government often points out that you are married to 
     a foreigner. How important is that criticism to the average 
     Burmese?
       A: I don't think it means very much. If I were married to a 
     Burmese, they'd probably attack my husband's family for other 
     reasons than that he was foreign. Don't forget that they are 
     also attacking--very, very viciously--other party leaders 
     who are not married to foreigners.
       Q: Is your husband able to visit you?
       A: He came for Christmas, but last year he was refused a 
     visa for the Easter holidays. So he comes if he gets a visa.
       Q: You have frequently called for dialogue with the 
     government.
       A: Yes, we believe in dialogue and we will always believe 
     in dialogue because that's the way all political problems end 
     up.

[[Page S6251]]

       Q: Has the government made any overtures to you?
       A: Our party has a policy that we will make no statements 
     about dialogue until we decide we are ready to bring out an 
     official version.
       Q: So you're saying . . . ?
       A: What I'm saying is that I'm not answering your question 
     (laughs).
       Q: If there is an election based on the government's new 
     constitution, would your party participate?
       A: We don't even know whether there is going to be a 
     constitution or what sort of constitution. In any case, I 
     don't think we should be talking about the next elections 
     when the issue of the last elections has not yet been 
     resolved.
       Q: Currently, the government is promoting foreign 
     investment, and many companies, including Unocal in Los 
     Angeles, have investments here. What's your message to those 
     companies?
       A: We have always said--very, very clearly--that Burma is 
     not right for investment. The climate is not right because 
     the structural changes necessary to make an investment really 
     profitable are not yet in place.
       We have now acquired in Burma a small group of very, very 
     rich people. We did not have such people eight years ago--
     people who could go to a hotel and spend $1,000 on a meal. 
     That was unheard of. And the gap between the haves and the 
     have-nots is increasing. That does not make for social 
     stability.
       Q: Do you think the government's hold on power will be 
     strengthened as it opens up the economy?
       A: Well, it's not a free market. Some are freer than others 
     in their access to the market. The mechanism necessary for a 
     really healthy open economy does not yet exist. And one of 
     the most important parts of that is the rule of law. You have 
     to know where you stand. . . . Without that, there can be 
     neither credibility nor confidence. And every businessman 
     must agree that good business cannot be done without 
     credibility and confidence.
       Q: What do you do to discourage investment?
       A: It's not just what I say and it's not just the support 
     there is abroad for the movement for democracy. Potential 
     investors who really study the situation in depth, who don't 
     just take a superficial view, will come to their own 
     conclusion that the time is not yet right.
       They may want to put a little bit here so they can have a 
     toe hold, waiting for the day when Burma takes off. Of 
     course, that day will be when democracy comes.
       Q: In your heart, when do you think that will come? Are we 
     talking five years?
       A: I can't really say. But certainly I don't think it will 
     be that long.
       On the other hand, I know there will be a lot of problems 
     to deal with once we have democracy. In fact, I think we'll 
     probably have more problems after we have democracy than 
     before. This is always the case when a system changes from an 
     authoritarian system to an open and transparent one.
       Q: You tell the crowds that democracy is no panacea.
       A: Yes, I tell them that under a democracy, we will have to 
     be prepared to take responsibility for our country's 
     problems. Once they have democracy, they can no longer blame 
     the government because they are really the government.
       Q: But won't there need to be pressure to bring about 
     change here?
       A. There is international pressure. But of course what is 
     more important is that there is pressure from within.
       The Burmese people are tired of authoritarianism, and they 
     have seen for themselves that the authoritarian system has 
     not done the country any good at all. Our standards of 
     education are falling. Standards of health are falling. The 
     face that we have new hotels does not make up for the fact 
     that our children are less well-educated.
       Q: Were you surprised, after your release, that there was 
     still strong support for you? Did you worry that you might 
     have been forgotten?
       A: No, no. I was not that surprised. It's nothing to do 
     with me. It has more to do with the desire of the people for 
     a system that gives them both liberty and security. This is 
     what people want, isn't it? People want to be free and at the 
     same time they want to be secure.
       Q: And you personally?
       A: It's not me they are supporting in particular. The 
     government seems to think it's me personally that the people 
     are supporting. This government always gets things wrong.
       We won the election in 1990 because the people wanted 
     democracy. It was not because of me.
       Q: Do you worry about your safety?
       A: No, I don't worry very much at all. It's not because I'm 
     all that courageous or anything. It's just that there is no 
     point in it. If they want to do anything to me they can do it 
     any time they like.

                          ____________________