 |
| U Zaw Htay, |
By HTET NAING ZAW 10
July 2017
U Zaw Htay,
government spokesperson and director-general of the President’s Office recently
talked to The Irrawaddy about the threats facing Rakhine State and press
freedom in Myanmar.
Fourteen
parties including the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) have called
for a state of emergency to be declared in Rakhine State. What is the
government’s response to their demand?
The parties have
concerns over national security, so they gave the government suggestions. We
welcome this. A special meeting was held at the presidential residence on June
30 with an extensive discussion on the Rakhine issue. At the meeting, the
military presented future plans and we discussed our ‘responsibility to
protect.’ I can assure you the government is handling this issue seriously,
though we cannot explain everything in detail. What I can tell you is we are
doing everything that we should be doing.
National security is
not only the concern of a single political party, but an issue the entire country
should join hands to tackle together. I’d like to urge all political parties to
disseminate knowledge about national security to the people.
As for the
government, it is working to protect national security. The parties calling for
a state of emergency need to understand this. We’d like to urge them to
cooperate with us in a constructive way.
Does
their statement hassle the government?
We aren’t hassled by
it. It is usual for political parties to do such things. Some may not know
about the procedures of the UN, and they may have drawn the wrong conclusions
as a result. They can come and discuss with our foreign ministry experts to get
a better understanding of UN procedures.
USDP
lawmaker U Hla Htay Win said the government did not try to put a UN resolution
to form a fact-finding mission on Rakhine State to a vote at the Human Rights
Council. Is that the case?
There were
disagreements over whether or not to put it to a vote. We had to think about
whether the resolution would change even after a vote was taken. This is a
technical matter and it is difficult to explain. So, what I want to say is, we
welcome suggestions and we invite [the USDP and other parties] to come and talk
with our UN experts.
They were
demanding the declaration of a military administration in Rakhine State, so
what is the take of the Myanmar Army? Is it fully cooperating with the
government?
Yes, the army fully
cooperates with the current government. It cooperates and collaborates with us.
The responsibility of national security lies with the military. The Myanmar
Police Force was under the direct control of the army in the past, but it has
been under its own ministry since 2010. We [the government] still have a lot to
learn about national security. At the same time, the army is doing what it
should do, I’d say.
Deputy
Foreign Minister U Kyaw Tin said the government was handling the Rakhine issue
through diplomatic channels on the international stage, and urged security
personnel to take action with responsibility and accountability for human
rights. Will the government investigate alleged human rights abuses?
The army has formed
an internal investigation team, as have the police. There are a lot of alleged
human rights violations. But the commission led by the vice-president has yet
to publish its report. One of its three responsibilities is to investigate
alleged human rights violations. The commission will investigate and publish
its report.
The government,
Myanmar Army, Myanmar Army leaders, police chiefs, and the home affairs
minister are not denying all of the allegations. What they have said is to
present the cases to them with strong evidence if there were such violations.
If there is evidence, they will investigate and find the truth. We’ve told this
to the UN and all of the other organizations.
So, give us strong
evidence, and we will take action in line with the law if allegations are found
to be true. Military leaders share the same stance. So, we will have to review
the reports of all investigative bodies to determine if those allegations are
true.
Why did
the government decide to appoint Kofi Annan as chair of the Rakhine State
Commission despite criticism and opposition? What is the benefit to the
country?
We formed the
Rakhine State Advisory Commission led by Kofi Annan last August, and its
mandate is to give us advice. It is an advisory commission, and is responsible
for assessing the issue from various aspects and providing recommendations to
bring about sustainable development.
Our government also
released a statement that we are implementing the recommendations of the Kofi
Annan Commission. There was no problem [insurgency] at the time we formed the
commission last August. We formed it at that time so that we could explain to
the international community in case of a problem in the future.
Whenever there is an
accusation from the international community, we say we are taking action in
line with the recommendations of the Kofi Annan commission. The commission is
serving as a shield for us. Was it not for Kofi Annan commission, the
allegations would be much worse, I think.
The
government has appointed a national security advisor. What is his role? What
can he do for national security?
Most countries have
a national security advisor. India has one and the US has a national security
advisor and a national security council. In protecting national interests and
national security, the first line of defense is diplomacy, and the last line of
defense is the military.
It is not unusual to
appoint a national security advisor. Those who criticize this may have their
own reasons to do so. But, we need to observe international practices. If we
take a look at where our national security advisor is going and what he is
doing, then we’ll see.
The media often
covers his statements and you can know what he is doing by assessing those
statements. National security advisor U Thaung Tun is a former ambassador and
has lots of experience and served as an ambassador under Snr-Gen Than Shwe amid
mounting pressure [from the international community.]
He has a network and
other advantages that he gained from his experiences as an ambassador. He will
contribute to national security and national interests.
Does the
government have a strategic master plan for security and economic development
of the entire country, including Rakhine State?
The vision of our
government is ‘Peace, Prosperity, Democracy.’ The State Counselor is focusing
her efforts on peace. As for prosperity, the government is working for the promotion
of education, health services and administrative reforms. These are priorities
under our 12-point economic policy.
As for democracy, we
are working for constitutional amendments and to build a democratic federal
Union through the 21st Century Panglong peace conference.
Members
of the media are facing prosecution under laws such as Article 66(d) of the
Telecommunications Law and 17(1) of the Unlawful Associations Act. Why should
the media face such restrictive laws under a democratic government?
It is about the
application of the laws. It is up to the complainant to choose under which law
and article to file a lawsuit. The government can’t intervene in this. And it
is the job of judges to decide with their own rationale if the charges fit the
offenses or not.
What the government
can do is to assess how the laws are applied and their consequences and propose
that Parliament changes the laws if necessary. The government may take
political conditions and the democratic cause into account in considering
violations of those laws. But, it is difficult for us to tell the complainants
not to use this and that law because this is a democracy.
Speaking of the
media, we can’t just look at Article 66(d) and Article 17(1). We need to think
about its entirety and have a long-term view. Similar things will happen in the
future, and we need to think about how to monitor the media. There should be an
institutional mechanism that monitors the media on their behalf before other
institutions directly sue them. If there is an internal control, direct
lawsuits from outsiders will be less likely.
The complainants may
not accept it if we ask them not to use charges of 66(d) and 17(1). What I
prefer is a mechanism like the press council, which will monitor the media and
then prosecution will be the last option.
The media is also
involved in the democratic transition of the country. Based on democratic
norms, the media usually gets freedom of expression first. They can expand
their space and rights – such as the right to information – during the
transitional stage [of a democracy.] Once democracy is rooted, then [the
government] will be able to protect the media.
Our transition has
not reached a firm stage. And both parties need to understand this. Concerned
institutions and stakeholders should join hands and brainstorm how to solidify
this transitional stage. Each side will
have their own views and concerns, but they should discuss the advantages,
disadvantages, and consequences of the existing laws to find a solution that is
acceptable to all.