In October, Burma's junta removed prime minister Gen Khin Nyunt. Analysts predict that the country's future is bleak with even more hard-line army leaders now in control. Looking at the recent purge and political events, The Irrawaddy spoke to Harn Yawnghwe, director of the Brussels-based Euro-Burma office.

Question: Were you surprised to see the purge and Khin Nyunt suddenly removed? (boxun.com)

Answer: Yes and no. I was surprised it was quite fast. It seemed to be quite thorough. It is not only the removal of Khin Nyunt but the whole intelligence apparatus and connections. So that was surprising, that it was so fast.

Q: Burma now has a new leadership: Shwe Mann, Myint Swe, Soe Win and many others. Do they represent hope for Burma?

A: It depends on how they are really thinking..they are really concerned about the Tatmadaw [armed forces] because maybe they feel that it is not working as they feel it should be working. One reason is the MI influence in the army. And also I think they have problems in the command structure where they cannot take care of the soldiers. So I think there is a genuine concern within the army. The new generation might want to do something. The question is what is it they want to do? Are they going to become more isolationist like the Ne Win era because many of them might think that it was better under Ne Win and being isolated than [in the] new era, where there's a lot of pressure from outside and a lot of outside influence. If they retreat back, that would be bad. But if they are really thinking about reforming and changing the system so that the Tatmadaw can survive and the nation can survive, then it could go in a good direction. At this point, nobody is sure which direction they are headed for.

Q: Do you agree with the notion that the new leadership is more hard-line and hawkish?

A: I think [so], yes.everybody is a hardliner. The whole objective is to preserve the Tatmadaw and its rules and that's the hard-line. So everybody, including Khin Nyunt, was a hardliner. It is just a matter of different methods they use. Again, although these people are hard-line, if they think that if they can alone save the country, then we are in trouble. We know, whether it is in terms of military, economic and political [matters] they cannot succeed if they go [it] alone. But if, to preserve the army and to preserve the Tatmadaw and rule, they decide that they should work with more people like Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic groups, then there might be some chance. Before, although Khin Nyunt was saying that he wanted to have dialogue and he wanted to bring about transition, he did not really have power. He did not command the troops and he did not have the loyalty of the troops and commanders. So if the current leadership, whether it is Maung Aye or Thura Shwe Mann, if they really think that for the good of the country they should really talk to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or some of the ethnic groups, then they can actually deliver because they command all the troops.

Q: Are there any indications that they are going to make some positive gesture?

A: It is hard to say. But, for example, many of the top leadership have been visiting all the ceasefire groups and have been saying that we are not going to change. Cease-fires were negotiated not with Khin Nyunt but with the Tatmadaw -that's a good sign. The news that [Secretary-1] Thein Sein visited Bohmu Aung's funeral.. those are the good signs. We need to watch and see what's next, because my understanding is that we like to see things in black and white in Burma. We like to say the military is bad, the democracy movement is good. But in reality all the generals feel that they are trying to do good. They are trying to save the country and protect the country. So in that sense, if you can see that they are trying their best in whatever way they think, whether you agree or disagree, then if they think that somehow by doing something different they can save the country better maybe we have hope.

Q: Aside from power struggle within the leadership, what about corruption and bribery charges, the problem of resource allocations?

A: I think the problem with Burma is that from a very long time ago corruption became a way of life, because you cannot survive without corruption. But it got worse with the opening up of the country to foreign investment and the gap between poor and rich became much, much bigger. Before, everybody was poor and even the generals were poor. There was some corruption but it was not that bad. So the move against Khin Nyunt is most likely not so much [because] he is corrupt -because everybody is corrupt to some extent. It is more that he was getting the lion's share or his people were trying to monopolize. And the struggle would not have been so bad if Burma's economy had been growing because the more.you can share and everybody shares and everybody [is] corrupt -no problem. But when the economy is going down, it becomes very important who has the lion's share. That's where the problem arose, I think. That shows that even if the military does not negotiate, talking to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, if they continue as they are there will be more fighting among each other because the share is getting smaller and smaller.

Q: What will happen to the Bangkok Process and the Road Map?

A: I think the Bangkok Process is most likely dead, but the Road Map, as far as the military is concern, they have said that it will continue. I guess what they will do is that they will continue with the National Convention, bring [it] until [a] conclusion, and I think they are planning to go ahead with the referendum.

Q: Will that be smooth sailing?

A: They could force it through. But if they do that, nobody will really believe in the Road Map or in the result. So I think they have a problem with credibility. So if they just go ahead like that they can't do it. They will not succeed in making anybody believe that they are changing, so pressure on them will continue. So if they really want to succeed by giving some credibility they really need to carry through what they are saying to ceasefire groups and trying to get NLD and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to at least [be] sympathetic or to be able to agree some point. If they can get that then I think they have a much better chance. But if they don't I think that they are in trouble.

Q: Some analysts said that the new leadership will be more hostile toward the ethnic groups?

A: The thing is that they are military, they are officers.from what I can see they have more to lose than to gain if they start to [be] hard-line against cease-fire groups. So in that sense, if they are thinking rationally then they will go slow on the cease-fire groups and try instead to persuade them to accept the national convention. Maybe they can. perhaps give-and-take with cease-fire groups on certain issues. If they do that then they will be able to get the cease-fire groups back in the national convention. But if they don't and [if they] become very hard-line then you can actually imagine that, for example, if they try to disarm the groups that is not going to happen, so you going to have a lot of fighting ad violence.

Q: What about Razali Ismail? Does he still have a role to play?

A: At this moment I will say no because he has not been able to go back in. Now if the new generals were to open up then of course he will have a role. I don't know. If they really want to have a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi then he will have a role.

Q: Some observers said that Burma will move closer toward India. Than Shwe made a visit to India recently. What is your assessment on this?

A: Again most people say that Khin Nyunt was the one who was close toward China. Maung Aye is not happy with that. If you agree or accept that, it will seem that new group will be leaning toward India more than China. Than Shwe's visit seemed to confirm that.

On the other hand, you can also see that Maung Aye is [not] that stupid because the next thing is he sent Soe Win off to China to try to balance. But in general, I think Burma needs to be neutral, whether it is military or democracy [it cannot] tilt [towards] China or India. That's also in a sense why Burma was right to join Asean [to] balance the two. But, of course, the problem with joining Asean is that the military did not follow up on actually building up the Asean link, they sort of only use Asean as a protection instead of using it as a real strategic move. So the problem now is that it doesn't have strong standing in Asean and at the same time it's trying to play off India and China. That's very dangerous because you might lose the balance. Also, if you have experienced people .that's fine, but both the foreign minister and the deputy foreign minister are not experienced in foreign affairs. That's dangerous. You wonder how they are thinking.

As far as I know the deputy foreign minister is ex-commander of the Light Infantry Division.

Q: What should the opposition do this time?

A: I don't think it will be useful in the sense of, say, trying to organize uprising or something like that. It won't work. But if the people were to say to the generals: we want peace, we want change.I think people in the political parties as well as cease-fire groups can convey a message. It is not that they are against them [the regime] but they want change, and now is a good time for the generals to do it. If they were willing to work with the people, then you can have change and that will be beneficial to the country and may be also to the Tatmadaw.

Q: What can happen to Than Shwe and Maung Aye, the two remaining junta leaders since 1988?

A: I think for the time being, Than Shwe has been the most senior and [should] still be there.

But.we have received reports of him [saying] he has been becoming more and more autocratic and not being rational. So I think he might go the way of General Saw Maung [eds: former head of the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or SLORC]. Most likely you will still have Maung Aye.(The Irrawaddy ) (boxun.com)