Aung San Suu Kyi
Burma, 1991 - presented by Harn Yawnghwe
"The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and Its Impact
on Asian Values and Democratic Principles"
November 6, 1998

Harn Yawnghwe: Professor Bond, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is a signal honor for me to be asked by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to participate in this conference on her behalf. It is really a great honor to be addressing such an eminent panel, and such a learned audience. I hope I can do it justice.

It has been a great learning experience for me, I have really been enriched by the time here, and I am only sorry that, though Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not here, she would have really enjoyed the company and fellowship of her fellow Nobel Laureates, and she would have enjoyed the intellectual challenge. The fact that she is not here really highlights the situation in Burma. I did not properly address the question that was asked yesterday why she is not here. I took it for granted that people knew the situation. The reality is that although she is supposed to be free, she is not. How can you say she is free when she cannot meet with her husband and her children? They cannot visit her. They are not given visas by a military junta. She cannot get on the telephone to talk to them because, not only is the telephone line tapped when it is working, but most of the time it is cut. And even when it is not cut, when she talks to people, if the military thinks that the subject is not appropriate, they will cut the line. Apart from that, she cannot, as a leader of her party, move about freely to talk to members of her party, or even with executives of her party. And not everybody can just walk in to visit her-there are troops around, the roads are blocked, there are security agents all over the place. Is that freedom? Would you consider that freedom if you could not move around, see your friends? And that is what the military is saying. She was released, they said, in 1995. And it is ironic that while we are here discussing-I am supposed to be talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a key U.N. document-it is ironic that the U.N., according to the British Broadcasting Corporation, is considering a "carrot" plan. A plan to give aid to the military. Of course, they say, you have to offer incentives to make them negotiate. Again, we heard yesterday His Grace, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has lived through a struggle for freedom. And he has said, "You need to keep the sanctions. Without the sanctions, we could not have achieved what we have achieved." I just bring this to you to underline the concern we have and the need really not to relax. Prime Minister Dr. Sein Win, who is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's political representative, is the Prime Minister of the government in exile. He is currently at the U.N. trying to persuade the U.N. that maybe they should go slow-this is not the right time. Because, according to the BBC, they are thinking of World Bank loans. I just bring this to you before my talk so that you are aware, you are briefed, and the need to caution the United Nations that maybe they are moving too fast. Even in South Africa, the sanctions were not lifted until way after the changes were in place. In Burma, the military isn't even talking with Aung San Suu Kyi yet, so how can we even be thinking of renewing aid? So, I am sorry for going off the topic, but I felt strongly that you need to know about it.

If Daw Aung San Suu Kyi were here, she would be very happy, and I'm sure she would want me to express her gratitude and her appreciation, especially to Professor Hopkins and to the University of Virginia, as well as to Michele Bohana, because of this great opportunity. It is really hard to express the comfort we get from such support and such solidarity. I would also like to use the occasion to personally thank Betty Williams, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, President Oscar Arias, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Rigoberta Menchú Tum. Because, in 1993, it was unprecedented, they got together with other Nobel Peace Laureates and went to Burma. Unfortunately, they were not allowed in, but it showed their concern for their fellow Laureate. I would also like to further thank Bishop Tutu, President Oscar Arias and José Ramos-Horta for their recent declaration with other Nobel Laureates, not just the Peace Laureates, on behalf of Burma. The support is incredible, and I am constantly amazed. Thank you.

Now, I will go on to the topic I was asked to speak about. As you know, debates about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Asian Values have almost always been portrayed as an East-West values conflict. Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia has said that the Declaration "is formulated by the super-powers which did not understand the needs of the poor countries." As such, he is implying that it is not applicable to Asia and the poor countries. In actual fact, it should be mentioned that that is not true. The initiative for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not start with governments. It was American civic organizations and non-governmental organizations which lobbied for human rights to be recognized within the U.N., so that it did not fall into the same trap as the League of Nations. And because of that, human rights became a major component of the U.N. Charter. And from that, it led to the formation of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. And a special committee that was formed to draft the Universal Declaration actually had eight members. Apart from the Soviet Union, France, United Kingdom and the United States, it included Australia, China, Chile and Lebanon. Of course, China, at that time, was not the People's Republic, but it shows that it did reflect Asian values as well. And when the Declaration was adopted in 1948, the U.N. had 56 member countries at that time. Forty-eight countries voted for it, and eight countries abstained. And the eight countries that abstained were from the Soviet Bloc, as well as Saudi Arabia and South Africa. So, the world has changed. And the countries that endorsed the Declaration from Asia were Burma, China, Cuba, India, Iran, Iraq, the Philippines, and Thailand. And, in actual fact, again, it was the smaller countries in the third world that were very enthusiastic about the Declaration. Because this was the first international agreement that recognized the equality and dignity of all peoples, regardless of the size of their country, regardless of their geographic or ethnic origin. And U Thant, a Burmese who was the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the '60s, said that the Universal Declaration is the Magna Carta of mankind. And yet, today, we have the generals in Burma saying that the U.N. Declaration doesn't fit our values, that it's being imposed on us by Westerners.

Another argument used by the people who push Asian values is that they were not members when the Declaration was adopted, so they shouldn't be forced to accept it. Their argument is not valid, because if you join an organization, you should know what the organization stands for, and the Universal Declaration is a key document, and you cannot say that you were not a member when it was adopted.

As for Asian values, I would like to start by saying, "What values are we talking about?" And if you say "Asian values," which ones? Because the term, as far as I know, the term, "Asian values" was not invented by an Asian. It was invented by a Western economist who could not understand what was happening in Asia, the economies of Asia, and he said, "there is something abnormal here, it doesn't fit the theory, so it must be 'Asian values'."

Since then, the term has been used by many people to mean many different things. Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, the former Prime Minister and current Senior Minister, whatever that means, has said that he has popularized the idea of "Asian values." He was, at the time, talking specifically about East Asian, meaning the countries of Japan, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and he was saying that these countries have done well economically because of Asian values. And that means, according to him, that they place group interests over individual interests. And that is the debate. His argument gained credibility because in 1993 the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna took it as a valid argument, and discussed it officially. And the Bangkok Declaration, which was a preparation for that conference, stated that "Human rights must be considered in the context of national and regional peculiarities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds." That's what the governments say-we do not agree-that the people of Asia had an alternative conference and they rejected this notion.

But, be that as it may, is there really a distinct set of Asian values that are different from Western values, if there is such a thing? Because when you talk about the West, we know that the United States is very different from Europe and, in Europe itself, you have very different cultures and different values-from the Nordic countries, to the Mediterranean, to the Slavic countries. And in the States, just take the United States, you have very different values among different groups. So, what Western values are we talking about? And what Asian values are we talking about? As I said before, Lee Kuan Yew was only talking about the so-called "East Asian countries." What about "South Asian values"-India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh? What about the Malay Polynesian values from Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, all these countries?

Even in Burma, where we have many ethnic groups, we have very different values. If you are living on the plains and are a rice farmer, or if you are living in the hills and you are a hunter, you have very different values. So, what values are we talking about? Some of the people who argue about different values also say, well, it's really Western Christian values being imposed on Asians. But again, you have to remember that the Asian values debate that Lee Kuan Yew used was based only on Confucianism, which is very different again, and it does not touch on the values that the rest of Asia have, which are Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and also animist. And to top it all, if you really look at Christian values, basic Christian values without all the cultural overtones, it's not a Western value, it's from the Middle East. It has the same root as Islam and Judaism. And on top of that, there are more Christians today in Asia and Africa than in the so-called Western world. And there are many Hindus, many Buddhists, and many Muslims in the Western world. So, what are we really talking about?

Others have said it's a question of traditions versus liberal democracy. It is a question of society versus individual rights, that it is a question of spiritual values versus material values. But, as with religion, Asian traditions are diverse. Societal values, spiritual values, as I mentioned, are also very different across Asia. It's not a monolithic block. Also, we cannot always claim that traditions are good. Slavery, the status of women, the degradation of women in some cultures, these are traditions. Does that mean that we should tolerate these traditions? On the other hand, preserving our culture, preserving our traditions, does not mean that human rights have to be denied. It is not an either/or question. Because, even in traditional societies in Asia, there are limits. We do not tolerate abuse of power. Even a king, in the olden days, if he abused his power, was not tolerated for very long. Even the Confucian belief that Lee Kuan Yew quoted does not advocate blind allegiance to the state. President Kim Dae-Jong of South Korea has been the advocate on our side who has also shown that Confucianism is not what Lee Kuan Yew claims it to be.

Also, we have great traditions. For example: in India, the Emperor Asoka, who ruled before Christ, before the third century B.C.E. He was a Hindu who became a Buddhist, and is well known for his enlightened politics. The principles of good governance, tolerance of societal and religious behavior, these things were known since thousands of years ago. The same with Emperor Akbar. He was a Moghul emperor, he was a Muslim. He too was known for his kingship, for his good governance. The same can be said of Burma. We have something called "The Ten Duties of Kings" which is widely accepted as the yardstick for good governments. They are: liberality, morality, self-sacrifice, integrity, kindness, austerity, non-anger, non-violence, forbearance, and, most important of all, non-opposition to the will of the people. You can read about this in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's book Freedom from Fear. She has expanded on this. So, Burmese Buddhist traditions are compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Therefore, it is really quite meaningless to be talking about an East/West values conflict, and Asian values. This is especially true in the case of Burma. The people of Burma want democracy. This was made abundantly clear in the 1990 elections, which, by the way, were organized by the military. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won 82% of the seats in Parliament. Which government today can boast such as majority? The military-backed party won 2% of the seats, and that was why they did not honor the election results. So, you can see that the Burmese people want democracy, but we have heard that the democracy movement is influenced by Western values. But, if you really look at it, although we had the election in 1990, Burma has been a country isolated for the last 35 years. The military took over in 1962, and they blocked off contact with the rest of the world. So, how can the people of Burma, who have had no contact with the Western world for over 30 years, be influenced by Western values? The media, all media in Burma is controlled by the military. We have no cable television; we have no satellite TV. It is illegal to have a satellite dish. You have no access to the Internet. In fact, a Burmese citizen who was the Consul General of Denmark was arrested for having a fax machine. They arrested him, denied him treatment-he was an old man, he had a heart condition-they denied him medical care. He died in prison. And this is a person who is a diplomat, accredited to a foreign government, not only Denmark, but also several European governments.

So, how were the Burmese people influenced by Western values? They have no access to the West. But, yet, they want democracy. In the case of Burma, the theory has been pushed on us by some clever people that to have a democracy you first need to have economic development, because you can't have a democracy without a middle class; you need a large middle class. But the people of Burma are peasants. I would say about 85% of the country lives off agriculture. We have very few people in the cities and a very small middle class. And yet, the people voted. They knew what they wanted. Why is that? That is because, through their own experience-we have had three decades of military rule-they have seen that a small elite should not be left to make all the decisions and be unaccountable for their actions. What is good for the generals has not been good for Burma and the people. We used to be one of the richest countries in Southeast Asia. We do have more resources; we are richer in resources than Thailand. But today, we are one of the ten poorest nations in the world. So, people in Burma want democracy because they want to limit the power of their rulers. They want to be able to have rulers who are accountable, who are responsible, and people who will be responsive to the needs of the people. That has nothing to do with being middle class, or being influenced by Western values. And, at this point, I would like to remind all of us that democracy is not a Western monopoly. The largest, and one of the longest functioning democracies, in the world today is India. It is an Asian nation that has traditions going back many thousands of years, and yet it is a democracy. It's not perfect, but it functions.

So, I would like to say that this is ample evidence that democracy and human rights are not at odds with Asian values, and are not at odds with Asian cultures and traditions. Of course, we are not advocating an American-style democracy; even in the West, in Europe and here, you have very different kinds of democracies, democratic systems, electoral systems-all kinds of rules and laws that are different. And, as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said, "What I want to see is the peaceful transition to a political system which is in accordance to the will of the majority." That is what we want, and democracy is the nearest thing to it.

Then, the question is, why has this debate gained such credibility? It was Lee Kuan Yew who proposed it first, and the conference discussed it, but what is really behind this argument? In this context, I would like to quote something from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan. He is not a Westerner. He was speaking about the freedom of speech:

There are those who still question the value of freedom of speech, those who still consider freedom of speech an imposition from abroad and not the indigenous expression of every people's demand for freedom. What has always struck me about this argument is that it is never made by the people, but by the governments. Never by the powerless, but by the powerful. Never by the voiceless, but by those whose voices are all that can be heard.

I believe the Secretary-General has captured the sentiments behind what the Asian leaders are arguing about when they say that human rights are Western values. What has been missed, or glossed over, is the fact that the Universal Declaration really is just an attempt to ensure that all people, regardless of their background, their sex, or other differences, that they are treated equally, that everybody is treated with dignity. And to ensure that they are protected by the rule of law, that they can live freely from fear, and be able to speak freely. So it is difficult for me to comprehend why it is so difficult for some of these rulers to accept that people should be treated equally, regardless of who or what they are. And if we accept that basic human rights are universal, we can solve many problems, not only in Burma but especially in Burma, because we have many ethnic groups who are fighting the military dictatorship, and they are actually not fighting for anything more than to be treated as human beings.

To encourage you, I would like to give you a practical example of how applying the Universal Declaration really can work. You may not be aware of it, but I am not from the same ethnic group as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a Burman, I am a Shan. Apart from that, my father and her father were on opposite sides of the table when they were negotiating to form modern Burma. They were able to agree, in 1947, before the Universal Declaration, that the basis for all the different ethnic groups joining Burma to gain independence from Britain, that the basis for this would be equality. All the races of Burma would be equal, and they would participate voluntarily in the Union of Burma. So, that is right in line with the Universal Declaration. Unfortunately, General Aung San, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's father, was assassinated before we got independence. And, in a sense, the ethnic people were betrayed because the agreement with General Aung San was not fully implemented. In the aftermath of independence, my father did try to bring about the agreement, but the military said that amending the constitution peacefully would break up the country. So, instead, they launched a coup. I lost one of my brothers; ours was the only house that the military surrounded and opened fire, one of my brothers was killed. My father was arrested, taken to prison, and he died eight months later, in solitary confinement. My mother was nearly arrested, but luckily she was away and she escaped-and we all escaped, finally. I have been a refugee when the only thing I possessed were the clothes on my back. But, I have recovered, and I am working with a Burman. You could say, the agreement with my father was not honored, and maybe I could accuse Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese leadership of betrayal, but that is not the way it works. I know that she stands for the universality of human rights. She stands for democracy, for the people to decide. And I am proud to have been asked by her to represent her today, and I think it is a very helpful sign. And we will overcome.

Thank you.

DISCUSSION AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS

Julian Bond: No quick responses? Let me begin. Recently, we have seen some expressions of public dissatisfaction with regimes in Indonesia, Malaysia, but not so in Burma. We understand that there is rigid control, but...

Harn Yawnghwe: There has been dissatisfaction. And there has been some protest. But it has been small, and it has not caught the attention of the media. One of the reasons, for example, that you haven't seen more activity, is that Burmese students at the University of Rangoon demonstrated against the regime in December of 1996, and in order to control demonstrations, the regime closed down universities. It has been closed since December 1996. Can you imagine that? One university demonstrated, and the whole country is shut down. There are no universities operating in Burma today. At the time of the student demonstrations, they also closed down the high schools, because the high school students were supporting the university students. This is the extent of control. The labor movement? It doesn't exist in Burma. It is illegal to have a union. It is illegal for anybody to have more than four people gather. The military intelligence is everywhere. The priesthood, the Buddhist Sangha, many of their leaders are also in prison. As I said, media is controlled. So, it is very difficult because even Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party is recognized as having won the election, cannot move around. She cannot talk to ordinary people. So that's why it has been very difficult. But we know there have been protests now and again, and students have tried to protest, but they are very quickly put down.

Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: I would like to know more about the refugees from Burma in Thailand. Some years ago, I had the opportunity of being with them, and I was very struck by the condition of their life, by the lack of liberty that they have in Thailand. Many of us want to read all about this, but we have a very difficult time; there is very, very little information about this. And I would also like to know more about the political refugees.

Harn Yawnghwe: Unfortunately, I have to say that the situation for the refugees on the Thai border, the conditions for them since your visit, has gotten worse. There have been attacks from across the border, and refugee camps have been burned. People have been kidnapped from refugee camps. The Thai government has tried to make conditions safer by consolidating camps, so the restrictions have increased on the refugees. This year, the Thai government invited the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to be present on the border. In one way, it could help, if the U.N. is present on the border; but we are also concerned, because we know that among the Thai military who are charged with looking after the security of the camps, they feel that if the refugees were not in Thailand, there would be no problems. They would not have any problems. So the idea to secure Thailand's border is to push the refugees back into Burma. You might say, well, if the UNHCR is there, maybe that's a good thing. But we are not so sure, because in the early 1990s, we had 300,00 refugees from the Arakan State, Muslim Rohingas, who fled to Bangladesh. They were repatriated to Burma by the UNHCR. They said it was a voluntary repatriation, but we have heard that the refugees were not really told that they had any choice. The other problem with repatriation is that in theory, when you repatriate a refugee, he or she should really be able to reintegrate back into the community and be able to live in freedom. Nobody in Burma lives in freedom. They are subject to forced labor, brutality from the military-women are raped, people are killed on the spot for small offenses. And then, people are not really reintegrated into society. They live in camps on the other side of the border. So what is the sense of repatriation? We would the UNHCR to be there, but they need to protect the refugees, they need to monitor the situation, not oblige governments or armies.

José Ramos-Horta: From your words, and from what we all have read and known about Burma, my conclusion is that the situation in Burma is even worse than in the worst years of the Suharto regime in Indonesia. As much as we, from East Timor, have been on the receiving end of one of the worst wars of aggression in modern history, really, I don't know of-except on a few occasions, when faxes and computers are seized-even during the Suharto regime, we have a very ongoing Internet activity in East Timor. And I, personally, never called for comprehensive sanction against Indonesia as such, except for the boycott of certain American-made products because of the exploitation of cheap labor in Indonesia. Because I also actually believe that economic engagement, sometimes, with some countries, in some circumstances, can be helpful. And it, to some extent, was the case with Indonesia, with the exception of the behavior of Nike, for instance, that they exploited the poverty, and justify poverty by saying, well, if we are not there, they don't have jobs, so let's exploit them. So that's one of the elements I disagree with. There is no doubt, I must also here introduce-because most of our contribution, Oscar's and my own, we seem to be over critically or very critical of U.S. policies. I think sometimes it is fair to say that, though modestly, it is the United States that has taken the lead. We, the European Union, the Norwegians, in particular, are putting pressure on the Burmese. And today as I was tuning in to CNN this morning, I was really touched and impressed to see American cargo planes getting ready to go to Honduras to deliver humanitarian assistance to Central America. That's one of the good things this country does. And it occurred to me: what better thing could President Clinton now, if he were to fly to Central America and visit those countries and draw even more attention to the needs in those countries. Or Hillary Clinton could do that.

But anyway, back to Burma. I am always confused why the so-called Helms-Burton Act-I don't know if you are familiar with it. Not that I agree with the Helms-Burton Act on Cuba, but why wouldn't they use it on Burma? The situation in Burma is far worse than in Cuba. I agree human rights violations are human rights violations. We cannot say one is better and one is worse. But if actions of that nature are justified on Cuba, then why are they not taking some steps forward to apply the principle of the Helms-Burton Act to Burma? What I mean to say is that there are certain countries in the region that are circumventing the limited sanctions on Burma and, therefore allows the Burmese junta to continue surviving. One is China, the major military backing and economic backing of Burma. The other ones were Singapore-now with the economic collapse in the region, maybe they are not so enthusiastic about Burma-and the other one was Indonesia. Fortunately, also the domino collapse. My question to Harn, and maybe to Julian Bond and others who are more familiar with U.S. policies toward Burma: why isn't the U.S. moving a step forward in really warning the countries in the region-China, Singapore-to cease their support to the Burmese junta. What is to prevent the U.S. from taking an additional step? I am sure Secretary of State Madeleine Albright must be one of the persons who must understand very well and admire their fellow woman leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and that Albright would use her power to really support the struggle in Burma.

Harn Yawnghwe: Thank you. I would like to say that, like José said, in the case of Burma, we have no complaints about U.S. government policy. They have been very, very supportive. When the U.S. ambassador who was in Burma finished his term after the 1988, the U.S. did not replace him. They downgraded relations with Burma. There is no foreign aid to the regime; there is an arms embargo; and since early 1997 President Clinton has enacted legislation which prevents American firms from making new investments in Burma. So, we do have sanctions from the U.S. In addition to the sanctions, we have visa bans. High-level military junta officials and their families cannot visit the U.S. The U.S. lead has caused other nations, including the European Union, to adopt similar measure. The only thing we don't have in Europe is the investment ban. We almost got it. The European Union was willing to enact a similar ban, but France vetoed it. And France vetoed it because they have a major investment in Burma with Unocal in southern Burma building a gas pipeline, and that gas pipeline actually has caused untold miseries to the people living in that area. So, we do have some things. But, I believe, one of the reasons something like Helms-Burton is not pushed, is that you now have something called the World Trade Organization, and you are not supposed to hinder world trade. And we are actually having some problems at the moment, because the state of Massachusetts and several cities in the states have adopted selected purchasing, meaning that they will not give city or state contracts to companies doing business in Burma. Many, many companies have pulled out because of these legislations, and Massachusetts, very bravely, was the first state to adopt this kind of legislation. Unfortunately, because of the World Trade Organization, the European Union and Japan are bringing the state of Massachusetts to task for going against the World Trade Organization. And at the same time, U.S. corporations, under the banner of U.S.A engage, fearing that the example of Burma and the state of Massachusetts will lead to other sanctions, state and city sanctions against Indonesia and China, have banded together to sue the state of Massachusetts. It is currently before the court.

Julian Bond: We are pleased to hear that there is a movement for democracy that has no complaints against the United States! Professor Hopkins.

QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

Jeffrey Hopkins: The questions for both of the speakers are, in this session, lumped together. First of all, I would like to thank President Arias for his clear presentation of the stark facts and figures of arms proliferation. We all need to hear this. And I want to thank Harn Yawnghwe for his provocatively profound questioning of popular but foolish boundaries. So, the first question is addressed to President Arias. A big part of the pressure to sell arms comes from arms dealers, big companies with big lobbying budgets, pushing government defense and foreign aid budgets. How can we intervene in this lobby?

Oscar Arias Sánchez: As I mentioned, it seems to me that it is very unfortunate that there has not been the political will to approve the U.S. Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. This is the only way to restrict the sale of arms to dictatorships, to violators of human rights, to governments which are aggressors involved in armed aggression against other nations, to governments which sponsor terrorism, to governments which do not comply with the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, etc. These are very well known. As I said, it is a matter of principles or profits. It's a matter of values. It's a matter of morality. These people are very powerful, they make huge contributions, huge donations, to congressmen; these are well known. Very few Americans, as I mentioned, are aware that the American taxpayer is subsidizing arms exports, that the arms you manufacture need to be exported because the Pentagon doesn't need them. I usually make a parallel between the sale of arms and the sale of drugs. The sale of drugs is illegal, the sale of arms is legal. In Washington, they look at the supply side, in the case of drugs, for the countries which are producing drugs and exporting them to wealthy nations. In the case of arms, they look at the demand side, and they tell me that if there is a country willing to buy arms from us, we will sell them, because otherwise, any other country will sell them. The fact that the sale of drugs is illegal and the sale of arms is legal doesn't make the sale of arms morally right. Both kill people. Both kill people innocent young children. What would a Burmese tell you, or a Colombian, or a Bolivian, if you ask him, "Don't sent drugs to us, to America?" I believe the Burmese would tell you, "If I don't sell drugs to you, Bolivia will, Peru will." That's the answer I get from the United States: "If I don't sell arms to you, France will, Russia will, China will."

Jeffrey Hopkins: This question is for Harn Yawnghwe. Is Aung San Suu Kyi able to make use of the funds contributed to the Health and Education Trust Fund that she set up for the Burmese people in 1992?

Harn Yawnghwe: Do you mean, is she able to use it personally?

Jeffrey Hopkins: No. Is she able to make use of it for the Burmese people?

Harn Yawnghwe: Yes. She used the money from the Nobel Peace Prize to form the Foundation, and it is now being used for scholarships for different Burmese people so that they can get an education, and be prepared for the future.

Jeffrey Hopkins: This is a question for José Ramos-Horta. Who have been the most influential people in your life?

José Ramos-Horta: Well, it's a very difficult question. Among the non-living people, I was always very, very fond of, and a great admirer of, the Kennedys. That was the first that I remember as a teenager: John Kennedy; Robert Kennedy; Ted Kennedy. Now I am a good friend of Patrick Kennedy. And it is remarkable, interesting how far away in Timor, we had no television, only some very bad short-wave radio, and we heard a lot about John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. I think that influenced me a lot. Then came, obviously later on, Martin Luther King. And then, the living ones: these gentlemen sitting opposite. His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The first I heard about the Dalai Lama, at first it was first simply curiosity. The name was exotic, the country was exotic, so everybody spoke so much about Dalai Lama, that once I went to listen to His Holiness. I was among the first to line up, because I wanted to see him up close. After a half-hour, I left. I was bored! Because he kept talking about peace and peace and I wanted to hear more about his trip from Tibet to exile. But then when I left the meeting, I kept thinking about how this man, to whom the Chinese authorities have done so much harm-to him and to his people-was so compassionate. And then I started thinking more seriously about his words, and began reading more: [John Avedon's] In Exile from the Land of Snows. It made me very embarrassed when I-at that time-I would hate the Indonesians, and would love to see someone bombing Jakarta, and then I was embarrassed, and I learned tremendously from His Holiness. But the list of people I admire is enormous. Tremendous inspirations, lessons from Oscar Arias. Desmond Tutu and so many others. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. So I could not say one particular person, because, fortunately, there are so many. But the very first that affected me, probably, unlike most people, was the Kennedys.

Jeffrey Hopkins: The final question is for Dr. Menchú Tum. One commentator recently said that the devastation wrought by Hurricane Mitch last week would set Central American development back twenty years. Would you agree, and how should the U.S. respond?

Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: Si. Unfortunately, in the case of both Honduras and Guatemala, 80% of the national territory, is incommunicado; we have no contact with those areas, we really don't know what has happened and how serious the situation there is. There have been a lot of mudslides, a lot of rivers have overflowed their banks and have taken entire towns and villages with them. There are various towns and communities throughout Central America with which our foundation, La Fundación Rigoberta Menchú Tum, works, but unfortunately we have not been able to establish contact with our companions in those communities. In Guatemala, we have four compañeros of the Foundation itself, with whom we have not been able to establish contact, either with them, or with their families. They may be safe somewhere, but we do not know what their present situation is.

Julian Bond: President Arias would like to speak as well.

Oscar Arias Sánchez: Very briefly. The best way you can help Central America is by opening up the U.S. market for our goods, industrialized goods, and agricultural goods. Ironically, the U.S. Congress is in favor of the expansion of NATO, so that U.S. weapons can be sold to the Czech Republic, to Hungary, and Poland; but it is not in favor of the expansion of NAFTA, even though everybody in this country talks about free trade and how important free trade is for developing nations. In other words, what is preached is not practiced. And then, I just want to mention because the audience might not know, even though foreign aid is a very unpopular concept in this country, you are responsible for the revival of Europe with the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan implied, I believe, at that time, 3 or 4% of GDP to the destroyed nations of Europe. Now, fifty years later, among the industrialized nations, you are channeling to the developing countries much less than any other industrialized nation. As a matter of fact, it is only one-tenth of what the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Danish, spend on official development assistance to poor nations. Just one-tenth. Even though, nevertheless, the American public, the American people, believe it is a huge percentage of your gross national product and of the federal budget. This is not true. Even in absolute terms, France, Germany, Japan, allocate more funds to foreign aid to the developing world than the U.S. And, finally, it is very ironic, and sad, that only ten years ago, when there was the bloody conflict in Central America, you were channeling huge amounts of foreign aid to those countries during the years of the Cold War. Now that the Central American countries had the courage and vision to silence the guns at the negotiating table, now that we have been able to bring peace to 30 million Central Americans who did not deserve to live in conflict, instead of rewarding the peace we have achieved, we have been punished by the U.S. cutting all foreign aid to the five Central American countries. This, indeed, cannot be understood, I believe, by anybody.

Julian Bond: Before we thank this morning's speakers and finish this morning's session, let me ask the audience if you will permit the laureates to vacate the stage before you move from your seats. And now, thank you to those who spoke this morning.