Razali Ismail spoke exclusively last week with Yap Mun Ching from the Kuala Lumpur-based Malaysiakini News Service. Razali spoke about his frustrations concerning the protracted negotiations, the potential for elections as well as the obstacles Burma must overcome before it will be viewed as a sound spot for foreign investors.

"We are going forward. We do not want to go back. This is not about criticizing the government. It is about finding a way out."

Q: What do you hope to achieve for your next visit to Myanmar [Burma]?

A:I am hoping to get the momentum moving again, and I want to understand why it has slowed down. I want to get the wheels moving as agreed to by all parties before.

Q: Are you going to meet the government and Aung San Suu Kyi separately?

A:Yes. I'd like to see the highest people in the government if possible, that is Senior General Than Shwe. A request has been made [to meet with him]. Under him, there is Lieutenant-General Khin Nyunt, who is the person I have been seeing. He is the interlocutor. I would discuss most things, or all things, with him.

Q: Is Khin Nyunt considered the one most supportive of the talks?

A: That is the assumption people make. I cannot say whether he is most supportive. I think I have to assume that the government supports the talks and wants the talks to move forward.

At the moment, the momentum is rather arrested. It has not moved. I would be bringing the concern of the United Nations and the international community to ask why since the lifting on the restrictions on Suu Kyi in May, a dialogue did not take place. A promise was made to me-that there would be a dialogue. I hope in the course of the discussions, we can work towards solving whatever bottleneck there is and continue with the steps for dialogue.

Q: Did they say when they would meet for the dialogue?

A: Yes. They didn't give a time but they said very soon. I have been dealing with dialogues and diplomatic discussions on various issues all over the world for a number of years. In my understanding, ‘very soon’ would be like a couple of weeks or three to four weeks. It has been more than that.

Q: Are you surprised that the talks have not progressed?

A: I am surprised seeing that. I can find no reason why there should be that much of a delay. There are always reasons, but the lapse is rather prolonged.

Q: When you were first appointed as envoy, you said the peace process would take two to four years. It has been two years now. How long more do you think it will take?

A: I do not allow myself the luxury of predetermining things. If there is genuine intention by all parties to try to achieve national reconciliation and move towards civilian constitutional democratic government, there is no reason why it cannot be done in the next few years.

Q: Do you think the government really intends to move this forward?

A: I do not allow myself to debate or agonize whether this is genuine or whether this is sincere. If you are facilitating, you mustn't ask yourself these questions. You must be positive and you must catch the momentum.

Q: Since Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, she has mentioned the possibility of a compromise and there have been reports saying that she might be willing to abandon the 1990 election results.

A: First, the word ‘compromise’ shouldn't be used. Suu Kyi has been travelling around. She has seen situations which have saddened her. She has seen that the Myanmar people are far behind their neighbors in terms of development. [This includes] their ability to deal with an economically competitive world and their [grasp] of technical and computer skills. I don't think anybody would dispute that Myanmar may be some 30 to 35 years behind Malaysia. [Suu Kyi] really wants Myanmar to catch up with that and make up for the lost time. She told me that she is prepared to cooperate with the government in anything as long as it brings direct benefit to the people and it promotes the process of democracy. She has not compromised on any of the principles that she has always stood for. But she has opened her mind to accepting certain things like working with the government as long as it helps the people.

Q: But the economy is affected by the sanctions against Myanmar which Suu Kyi had supported.

A:I can assure you that if there is no clear steps towards national reconciliation and political stability, even if there are no sanctions, investors would be [reluctant] to go in. Secondly, the country must have the absorptive capacity to deal with funds that come in. If they do not have the capacity, skilled labor and infrastructure, nobody will invest. I don't think that sanctions alone have put the clock back on Myanmar. It is also the inability to deal with economic adjustments and reform.

For example, take China. Despite still keeping its command and control government and set of governance, China has moved on the economic front in a very pragmatic fashion. The benefits have gone to the people even if there has not been political evolution. This is something that Myanmar can look at as a very good example. Even as you start the political process of national reconciliation, you can already begin economic adjustment.

Q: But would the UN be happy with that form of government?

A: Of course, everybody would be happy with that.

Q: Aren’t the key governments interested in the talks-the United States and Britain-looking for a more open form of democracy?

A:Nobody has the right to determine the final shape of things or the structure applicable to Myanmar. It is up to the people of Myanmar. If they want a Pakistani model, a Turkish model or a Chinese model, that's fine. Everybody can accept that. But the people must express their views.

Q: But they did in the 1990 elections ...

A: We know that but we are not looking backwards. We are looking at how to deal with the situation where there is the election results but things didn't happen the way they should have. We are going forward. We do not want to go back. This is not about criticizing the government. It is about finding a way out.

Q: Do you think the government will reconsider the election results, hold fresh elections or will the military junta retain key positions?

A: I think there is no denying that the [military] government has many times stated that it is a government in transition. They want a civilian democratic constitutional government with elections. So elections are definitely something that has to happen in the future. I think if there is national reconciliation in Myanmar, it would not be impossible to find a way out-while one can recognize in some way the results of 1990-and go on to have another elections. It is not impossible.

Q: Has Suu Kyi said anything about your involvement in Iris? [A controversy over possible conflict of interest arose in May after it was revealed that Iris Technologies, a Malaysian company in which Razali held 30 percent ownership, signed a deal to provide 5,000 electronic passports to the Burmese government.]

A:She has. I have spoken to her and she has complete trust in my integrity. But it is not a question of a person trusting you or not. At the end of the day, you have to think if you are qualified or not. If you are no longer qualified because of certain involvement, you should step down. I think I am qualified. If I step down it would be because it takes too much time, and if I think I am not going anywhere with the discussions. If it just goes on and on, I may decide to step down. It has been going on in my mind-how long more, how long more?

Q: Did you set yourself a time?

A: I want to see a situation where there is negotiation and it comes to a point of irreversibility. And all the parties, including the ethnic groups, are all together. Then, the UN does not have to do too much anymore.

"So, all Asean countries, particularly the ones physically neighboring Myanmar, have the right to make known their views and hope that there will be peace, reconciliation and economic development…. Asean countries can play the necessary role to bring about the evolution of political structure in Myanmar."

Q: Were you already involved with Iris Technologies before you became UN special envoy?

A: I joined Iris nearly four years ago. About two and a half years ago, I became the UN envoy. Iris’ interest in Myanmar [Burma] happened before I became the special envoy but it was a general interest. Then, it developed into something specific. I have never once spoken to the leaders in Myanmar about Iris.Iris is a technology [company] that wins contracts by itself. Iris’ technology is the most obvious one to have because this is the way how passports will go- electronically. I have never at any moment felt that there was conflict of interest. Purists can say otherwise, as one journalist did. So I asked him if he wanted me to resign. Would everybody be happy if I resigned?

We seem to try to splash things up to so many parts. I have been in the US, I have been to the UK and Europe, and the connections between business and politics have always been there but you must be accountable. Here, in the context of accountability, I have done nothing at all. There is not an iota of conflict involved.

Q: So you don’t think it has affected your credibility?

A: No, I think the UN looked at it and thought there was nothing there. If they didn’t like it, they could have stopped my contract. I would be quite happy not to be special envoy, I have other things to do in my life. I was sort of shanghaied to do this job. If they don’t think that I am the right person to do it then they can always terminate the contract.

Q: Are they happy with what you are doing now?

A: Well, every six months they come and say please do it for another six months. Basically while some people raised their eyebrows, nobody wanted me to actually to drop this. In fact, I got another contract recently, without asking.

Q: Will this silence your critics?

A: No, it will not silence them. There are always people who want to be such purists. It is not so simple. Life is not so compartmentalized.

Q: You are a very busy businessman in addition to your UN work. If the Myanmar parties and the UN want you to expand your role, would you have the time?

A: There are a lot of things I want to do. I want to do some environmental things. I want to do some farming, I want to grow trees. We should try to do forest plantation. We should not cut trees anymore. Down the road, say 20 years from now, we should cut trees only from plantations. We should already begin. It is already beginning in Sabah and Sarawak, and we should do it here in the peninsula.

I also want to do better with the Yayasan Salam [state-owned Salam Foundation] which wants to help in national integration and push the concept of active citizenship. So, this has already taken a lot of my time and I am beginning to feel like a fellow who is punched-drunk-you know, running from pillar to post.

But Myanmar is like a magnet, it draws you in. It is not just the political things but also the people, the rights of people to have a chance to do better for themselves. And the personalities are very, very interesting so if I can play a role then I will do it.

Q: Why were you picked as envoy? Could it be because of your position as special advisor to Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad?

A: The [UN] secretary-general [Kofi Annan] has advisors to tell him who to [choose] and I was picked. I don’t think it has any connection to my job with the prime minister of Malaysia but I am sure they took into account the relationship between Malaysia and Myanmar.

Q: When Asean embraced Myanmar, one of the reasons given was that the move would open up dialogue with the military government. But there is little visible effort to push for reconciliation talks between the junta and the opposition.

A: How can you say that? The prime minister of Malaysia...

Q: But he is a Malaysian leader. What about Asean?

A: Here I am speaking as a Malaysian. I think Dr Mahathir has done a huge amount of work in trying to help the UN and bring about a situation of national reconciliation in Myanmar at the highest level. He continues to have that concern and he also wants to get businesses [going] in Myanmar. That would help Myanmar.As far as the other Asean leaders are concerned, as a Malaysian or even as a UN special envoy, I am somewhat surprised that they have not expended energy to that extent.

Q: What kind of efforts do you expect?

A: In the case of Asean, while respecting the question of non-interference strongly, it is still possible to express your view on a particular situation. After all, we have common borders. There is mobility across borders and people move from one side to the other and there is also [migrant] laborers from Myanmar. There is also the fear of HIV spread, and the fear of the movement of narcotics, whatever their place of origin. So, all Asean countries, particularly the ones physically neighboring Myanmar, have the right to make known their views and hope that there will be peace, reconciliation and economic development.

As the prime minister says: ‘Prosper your neighbor’. This is the only thing that will work. We don’t want a situation similar to what Western Europe did to Eastern Europe during the Cold War-to try to starve and bankrupt Eastern Europe.

To some extent they did succeed but the price they have to pay to rebuild the economies is huge. So why don’t we do it this way? We help to develop these countries as much as we can, not just Myanmar but also Laos and Vietnam. In the context of constructive engagement, Asean countries can play the necessary role to bring about the evolution of political structure in Myanmar.

Q: Similar to what Mahathir is doing now?

A: Yes, without headlining and without trying to get kudos from it-just quietly. The [8th Asean Summit in Phnom Penh] has just taken place. I do not know how many leaders took the trouble to talk about this quietly.

Q: As the special advisor to Mahathir, are you required to brief him on the Myanmar situation?

A: Yes, as much as possible. As often as the PM has the time, I brief and talk to him on this and that about Myanmar. I also express my views over a few other things. I think the honor is mine.I have gained more from that designation than I have given to the PM so I am very grateful for that. I am honest enough to realize that the PM has done me a favor. I haven’t really helped him enough in advising him.

Q: It was said that Suu Kyi wanted to meet with Mahathir during his visit to Myanmar in August. Subsequently, they did not meet. Do you know the reason for it?

A:I was told that Suu Kyi wanted to meet with Dr Mahathir, and Dr Mahathir also would have liked to meet with her. I am surprised that they have not met.I think it would help the government of Myanmar and Suu Kyi in their understanding and their perspectives of the issues. I hope they meet. I do not want to speculate why they did not meet, I have no right to do that. I think it makes a lot of sense for them to meet.

Q: According to Human Rights Watch, the military has been involved in persecuting Muslim minority groups. Malaysia is home to a sizeable community of Muslim Rohingyas who say they face persecution.

A: I am aware of what has taken place and there are huge numbers of internally displaced people. Some of them have come here. A solution must be found eventually, if not sooner.I think if there is political reconciliation, all these issues will begin to be solved. If these Muslims from the Arakan area have citizenship, then the government would have to accept that they are citizens. If they do not have citizenship, then it is another matter. If they are citizens, all rights of citizenship must be given to them.

Q: That is the disputed point.

A: In a better climate when there is national reconciliation, all these things will have to be examined. But you can’t just plunk this out and make this a red flag -that the military government is terrible. That is not putting the whole picture there.Various groups outside can always have their favorite flogging horse. Everybody has that. Here too, maybe there are politicians who feel that as Muslims, we have to help them. Maybe there are grounds for all this, but please look at it in context.

Q: There are also reports from human rights groups alleging rape of Shan women, use of child soldiers, slavery, ethnic and religious persecution.

A: I deal with the reconciliation process. These [other] matters are dealt with by Dr Paulo Sergio Pinheiro who is the UN special envoy for human rights.However, they do impact on what I have to do. All the allegations must be investigated. It would not be wise not to investigate them. One has to know the truth. Sometimes things are said and they have their own momentum.I am not saying that these allegations are blown out of proportion but we have to be very careful because these are very emotive things. Women being raped and [persecution of] ethnic groups are terrible but one has to be cool-headed about these things. It is also very easy to make allegations.

Q: So far you have met with Suu Kyi and the government separately. Any chance for you to meet them together?

A: My role is that of a facilitator. I do not really mediate. That has been an arrangement that has suited everybody given their sensitivities and all that. Of course, the UN is prepared to consider all possibilities if, for some reason or other, the UN has to do more and I am asked to be more involved. If all parties agree, there is no problem.

Q: Do you see your role evolving to one of a mediator or do you see yourself stepping out at some point?

A: One has to be very careful about this because the Myanmar parties are very sensitive and very clear in their minds that they want to do it their way. This is a homegrown process of national reconciliation and as far as the UN is concerned and the international community is concerned, as long as the results are there we have no right to say this or that.If there is a need recognized by all parties that I should do more then, of course, I would do it.

Q: You have said that you met with several ethnic minority group leaders. Who are they are which groups do they represent?

A: They are the leaders of ethnic political parties that are considered legal. They have an alliance called the [United Nationalities Alliance].

Q: Some exiles from Myanmar have said that the people are now at a breaking point.

A: I think the events of 1988 are not something that one should contemplate for the future. I think there must be other ways of doing this. It is the right of the people to take to the streets if things are desperate, but things are not that desperate. If you look at Suu Kyi’s philosophy, she does not want any of those things. She wants to persuade the government that it is in everybody’s interest, including the military government to evolve into a situation where there is national reconciliation and a proper government.

Q: What about news that people are starving?

A: People are undernourished and people are poor in certain areas. They need infrastructure development. They need power, their lights are sometimes shut off. There is no reason why 50 million people in Myanmar should live like that. Myanmar is not in some remote corner of the world. Myanmar is part and parcel of Asean, a burgeoning area of growth. The people in Myanmar should benefit like other people in Asean, so it is not acceptable.

This interview is reprinted from Malaysiakini. ww.malaysiakini.com