“We can’t compromise on this revolution. We have to act decisively to sendthe military back to the barracks.” – Dr Hla Kyaw Zaw (Political analyst)

Recently, international leaders have met with the military regime in Myanmarwith increasing frequency. The Thai foreign minister visited the regime inApril, followed by a visit from the Chinese foreign minister. The China’scentral government’s foreign minister has even personally visited SeniorGeneral Min Aung Hlaing, chairman of the military council.

In this interview with Narinjara, China political analyst Dr. Hla Kyaw ZawDr. Hla Kyaw Zaw discussed whether the path of dialogue China wants is possiblein light of recent visits by Chinese officials.

Q – In April, the Thai Foreign Ministervisited Myanmar, and shortly thereafter Ban Ki Moon also visited Myanmar. Andthen came the Chinese Foreign Minister. The ongoing conflict in Myanmar isescalating, raising questions about the viability of the path of dialogue Chinais seeking with its government’s visit. Can China successfully persuade themilitary council? And even if the military council could be persuaded, wouldthis lead to meaningful dialogue? Could prominent figures like Daw Aung San SuuKyi be brought to the negotiating table? I’d like to hear your views on thesequestions.

A – I think it’ll take time. Because China interfered in the affairs ofSouth Sudan and Java for six or seven years. Even Saudi Arabia and Iran metsecretly in China almost seven times. I don’t know if you remember that anIranian general was assassinated with a drone on the airfield under the Trumpadministration. Saudi Arabia and Iran had initially held talks in Iraq. Butafter the assassination of the Iranian general, they had to move the talks toChina. There were secret meetings on the issue. The visit of the leader of acentral government isn’t to be taken lightly. Before him, a leader of theCommunist Party of China came to visit. During his visit, he met only with UThan Shwe and U Thein Sein. He didn’t meet with Min Aung Hlaing. This is Chin’smessage (to the military council) that they have met with Myanmar’s former militaryleaders to put pressure on Min Aung Hlaing. Right now, I think Min Aung Hlaingis the most stubborn of all. Then the Chinese foreign minister came in becauseI guess he got the green light. The situation hasn’t improved as much as wewanted. Politically, there is no way out for the regime, but they seemed toassume that they can still win militarily.

So they continue to brutally suppress resistance. Politically, they have tofind a way out, because that is important for the long-term existence of a legitimategovernment. They’ll not give up as long as they believe they can win bymilitary means. Even if they were to give in to certain demands, it would onlybe a ploy. It’s right for the forces of the Spring Revolution to remaindetermined, because our country will be truly peaceful and experiencedevelopments when the dictators are gone. That is why we must continue tofight. Right now, they’re only working towards ending the violence. Ban Ki Moonhas talked about that. Noeleen Heyzer has also talked about this. We have tofight the military until we win. We have to continue to do what we have to do.If necessary, we need to form a coalition force and work in a more coordinatedway. Only then will the military be humbled. They have been presumptuous alltheir lives. When have they kept a single promise? We can’t compromise. It’sright that we act decisively. It’s true that they have the greater militarypower, but they’re also looking for a political way out. They still seem tothink they can maintain power by military means. They still think they don’thave to give up yet. We must firmly make them understand that we cannotcontinue with military dictatorship.

On the other hand, China has overcome the confrontation with the U.S. overthe Taiwan issue, but other important issues have emerged. The Myanmar issue isone of them. In the Middle East, the end of the Yemen problem is in sight afterthe conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran was resolved by peaceful means. TheSyrian conflict will also end soon. Like Russia and Ukraine, they need to talkwhere they’re. Zelenskyy is calling for the withdrawal of all Russian troops.Russia hasn’t yet responded. China’s ongoing efforts are aimed at ending theviolence and reducing the death toll. They’re also talking about ending theviolence in Myanmar. China has a very detailed agenda and will implement itstep by step.

Q – Can we be optimistic about the Chinese leaders’ visits to NayPyi Taw as a good sign?

A – Of course we can, if they can convince the military regime to stop theviolence. Only Russia and China are treating them well. Russia won’t be able tocome to their aid because it’s also in a power crisis. Economically, only Chinacan help them, so they have to treat China with a little more favor. They’ll haveto follow China’s advice to some extent. On the one hand, China only caresabout their interests. They’re working for their strategic interests. China’sstrategy will only work if Myanmar is peaceful. That is why they haveintervened. When they intervene, they talk moderately. The regime in Myanmarhas no other choice. They have no one else to rely on. I think there will bepositive developments. But we can’t compromise on this revolution. We have toact decisively to send the military back to the barracks. We mustn’t rush; weshould do it step by step. We have to fight until the military regime realizesthat the people have an equal right to political and military rights andpowers.

Q – If we look at the stance of China and the U.S. on the Myanmarissue, we can see some differences. Some political analysts say China is onlypursuing its own interests in Myanmar. They say China’s main goal is toimplement the BRI project by making neighboring Myanmar a central front. Whatis your opinion on that?

A – The United States has a different approach than China. They only thinkabout winning. Some countries have become intolerable over time. China hastaken a win-win approach from the beginning. You take something and we alsotake something. So China’s approach has proven to be fairer. But if we look atthe U.S. intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq, we can see how they eventuallyleft those countries in chaos. First they promised democracy to both countries,but in the end they were all burned to ashes. The withdrawal of U.S. troopsfrom Afghanistan was particularly embarrassing. As China becomes strongereconomically, countries that have good relations with China can solve theireconomic difficulties to some extent. After peace was made in South Sudan,China helped rebel groups develop agriculture and build dams so that theresisters could become farmers again. China is also helping Wa and Mongla inthe same way because China also has capital. They came with that capital andcontributed to building roads and bridges. They’re now automatically better offbecause of the improved transportation. Chinese peacekeepers also did the samething in Cambodia. They helped build roads and improve the flow of goods. Theyhelped build dams. Who will remain rebels if they’re offered seeds foragriculture and their economy grows as a result?