A CONVERSATION WITH AL HAJ U AYE LWIN
11 June 2021, New York, NY
(from Religions for Peace Headquarters)

Prof. Azza Karam: Today we have a conversation between two very distinguished gentleman: one who is the son of Myanmar, and the other who is the spiritual son of Myanmar. My name is Azza Karam, and I have the distinct privilege of serving as the Secretary General of Religions for Peace.

For those of you who may not yet know about Religions for Peace, this is the largest international grouping of religious institutions, religious leaders, and faith communities around the world, with national country presence in 90 countries and regional presence in six regions of the world.

We are humbled by the work that is called upon in these days and times – that is the work of peace-building, in the widest sense of the word of “peace: ” not simply the absence of conflict, but indeed the well-being of all, each and all, and the sense of security imperative not just for the basic needs of people, but for the very quintessential sense of dignity that every human being is entitled to live and that does require a planet that is healthy and thriving.  These are the same challenges that confront any institution around the world. It is also the challenge confronting every single religious institution and faith leader around the world.

We know that today and for the last several months Myanmar – one of the countries with which Religions for Peace has a long history of engagement and a long investment of interreligious considerations, support, engagement, and learnings, which occur in this beautiful country with valiant people – the last few months have been very difficult months for Myanmar, as they have been for many other parts of the world.

Today we are choosing to seize the opportunity of having present amongst us at the Religions for Peace headquarters in New York, a very distinguished leader from Myanmar. U Aye Lwin has been a long-term peacebuilder in Myanmar and in the region. He serves as the Chief Convener of the Islamic Center of Myanmar and is a founding member of Religions for Peace Myanmar. He’s also the Treasurer of the Management Committee of the Bahadur Shah Mausoleum and was the appointed leader of the Myanmar government sponsored Hajj delegation in 1998. He is, as well, a member of the Kofi Annan Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. U Aye Lwin has a long-running interest and Sufi traditions and serves as a Khalifa, or spiritual guide, in the Qadariya Aarliya Sufi order. He has authored and translated dozens of books on Islam and comparative religion and presented papers at seminars nationally and internationally. He is deeply involved in peacebuilding and conflict transformation in his native Myanmar. An educator by profession, U Aye Lwin teaches physical education and serves on the Board of Management of the Diplomatic School in Yangon. Allow me to bid U Aye Lwin and each and every one of you a very warm welcome to the space and this conversation: On the imperative of democracy and governance in Myanmar.

This conversation will take place with Reverend Kyoichi Sugino, who serves as Religions for Peace’s Deputy Secretary General.  Reverend Sugino joined Religions for Peace’s International Secretariat in 1999 and was appointed as Deputy Secretary General in 2011. He has been directly engaged in multi-religious diplomacy and track II negotiations in Iraq, Syria, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and other conflict zones. As an engaged Buddhist leader, he has worked with senior most leaders across various streams and co-authored a historic Yogyakarta statement on shared values and commitments to overcome violent extremism and advance common action for peace.

This conversation will take place between these two distinguished gentlemen, and I am now hereby with great pleasure and honor handing the leadership of this discussion and conversation to Reverend Kyoichi Sugino, to do the honors.  U Aye Lwin, we look forward to listening and learning from you and from this conversation, thank you.

Rev. Sugino: Thank you so much, Professor Karam. Welcome, Al Haj U Aye Lwin, to Religions for Peace’s world headquarters.

Today, your beloved friends inside Myanmar and your partners across the Religions for Peace global movement and beyond are listening in this conversation. Since the coup started over four months ago, your friends from across the globe have been expressing their profound concern, care, and support for the people of Myanmar, particularly for the religious leaders who have been tirelessly working for peace and reconciliation in the country. We also know, painfully, that Myawaddy Sayadaw in Mandalay and some other religious leaders have been detained. Please tell us about their current situation, their safety and well-being, and the pain and suffering religious leaders and the people of Myanmar are experiencing now.

U Aye Lwin: Allow me to wish all my friends with an Islamic greeting: May the peace, blessing, and mercy of Almighty be upon all of you. First of all, I would like to thank the Religions for Peace’s Headquarters for allowing me to share my thoughts on my beloved country, Myanmar.

To go straight to the question: at the moment, the core members of Religions for Peace Myanmar are quite safe. But as you might have noticed, we have been issuing statements about our concern. So, our main purpose is to maintain peace and have reconciliation. That is what we have been doing throughout our endeavors. We have already done three forums (Religions for Peace Advisory Forum on Peace and Reconciliation). It seems that they have been stopped for a moment, but we will try our best to regain the momentum and try to have this reconciliation process. As the conversation goes on, I will explain why this, the process for reconciliation, has been slow.

Rev. Sugino: Thank you so much. You mentioned the important forum led by religious leaders. The forum has engaged Aung San Suu Kyi and her previous government, the military, ethnic armed groups, as well as civil society organizations. In the last 10 years, there had been a civilian and military hybrid governance. Despite some progress on democracy made, how do you see the limitations and challenges of such governance formula? What went wrong, and what should be improved in the future?

U Aye Lwin: We have to go back to history. While we have coups in Myanmar history – this is not the first time – it is quite different this time. In 1958, the legally elected civilian government handed over the power to the military to serve as a caretaker government.

They have tasted blood. In 1962, they had a full-fledged coup, and parliamentary democratic system was abolished. In 1974, there was a one-party socialist regime. In 1988, there was another coup. This time, though, the military has been trying to emphasize that this is not a coup but that they are doing it according to the Constitution, because they feel that the winning party has rigged the election and that they have misused their authority and power. So according to the Constitution, the military has the right to set up things right – that is, according to their statement. What they are trying to paint is that they are the same government, only that there is some reshuffling. They are saying that they are not the “military junta,” as people are trying to say, but this is their point of view.

According to the people, this is a full-fledged coup, just like any other time. People are out on the street, and they are very much against military dictatorship. To answer your question, it will take time to restart our process for reconciliation. The peaceful protests have turned violent. Under the pretext of safeguarding the security of the country, the so-called authorities are using force to maintain law and order. The people from the street feel that they need to defend themselves, so there is some violence in the streets at the moment.

Rev. Sugino: You have shared the military’s perspective of the current event.  There are ethnic armed groups, fighting for autonomy from the center and the majority Bamar rule. The military claims that they are safeguarding the unity and security of the nation. Please tell us how these different ethnic groups are seen from the military’s perspective and how ethnic minorities perceive the military and the unity of the country they claim to protect?

U Aye Lwin: Myanmar is a plural society, where you’ll find many races living together. Of course, they fight sometimes. But they have managed to maintain some sort of unity since the time of the Myanmar monarchs. As for states like Shan, Rakhine, and Kachin, they had their own sovereign kings. Even under the British rule, there were certain areas which were not governed by the British. The Chins are very proud to say that they were never under any foreign rulers. The Kachins say the same thing, also. So, even with the variety of races that exist inside Myanmar, we should see that there is unity in multiplicity.

Resentment against the central government – which they feel is based on chauvinism and racism, especially from the majority of the Bamar race, which they feel is trying to dominate them – is embedded in their minds.

In order to clear up all this doubt, we need to do a lot of dialogue and try to prove that we are sincere in our deeds and not only in our speeches. We have to prove something on the ground, so we need something concrete on the ground. That is not happening as of yet.

Rev. Sugino: In the last 10 years of the civilian-military government, there was some progress in terms of multi-religious and multi-ethnic dialogue and collaboration for peace. As you highlighted, in the Religions for Peace Advisory Forum process, you and other religious leaders succeeded in creating an open space for dialogue among different ethnic and religious groups. What do you think was not sufficient in your multi-religious peacebuilding efforts during this period? What was missing? Please kindly describe the challenges and the limitations of the previous efforts of democracy and inclusive nation building.

U Aye Lwin: Mistrust, I should say. They have had a bitter experience. Civil war broke out along with independence.  It’s easy to blame and push out problems to others. In history, we learn about British imperialism, and we used to blame British colonialists for this, for sowing disunity among the national races. This could be one of the factors, but we have to do our own homework, and we have to realize that unity is a strength and “united we stand, divided we will fall.”

When we talk about “federal,” we don’t mean splitting away from the mainstream. Federal has a very deep meaning, and it has a cohesive force also, but we need to build up confidence and try to establish some understanding between the different races and try to forge this unity. That is not happening, as of yet, because on the ground things are quite different.

Rev. Sugino: When the coup started, I noticed that religious leaders were very prudent, and that religious leaders and their communities had experience working under the successive military dictatorships. You all know how to work with them skillfully to protect your people. Initially, I think there was a slightly mixed reaction from religious communities: some of them were prudent and reluctant in issuing statements against the coup.  By mid-March, however, even the most conservative State Sangha Council issued a strong statement against the coup. How did you see the religious communities’ responses to the coup and the aftermath of the coup, and the changes in their perspectives and actions?

U Aye Lwin: Even before the coup, religious leaders sensed that such a thing could happen. In the 2015 election, the NLD won a landslide victory. They did their best, but there were some flaws, because the NLD as a political entity is not well up to the standard. They were good fighters, they were revolutionaries, but governance and rule of law is another issue. Because of these drawbacks, the opposition (military associated political parties) felt that the people’s support for the NLD was dwindling. They knew that they could not beat the NLD because of this personality cult that Myanmar people had for its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

So, what they expected was to form a coalition government, but as election drew near, they knew that there was no chance for that either. So, they started to find faults and tried to say that the election would be rigged by the authorities, and that the NLD government was trying to manipulate the Election Commission and trying to breathe down their necks. These kinds of allegations started way before the election, so people sensed that something would happen.

So, we had been urging both sides to clear out the misunderstandings and try to meet with each other, start the dialogue, and try to clear up all these suspicions, but it didn’t happen, unfortunately. As you know, there were independent bodies who monitored the election. Yes, there are some flaws in the function of the Election Commission, but nothing that would change the result. Because the people’s support for democratic forces, led by the NLD, was so clear, we had no doubt that they would have a landslide victory.

Another thing is that Myanmar people cherish democracy, and they have suffered a lot under the dictatorship. So, enough is enough for them. Even those who do not support the NLD as a party have the democratic spirit, and they do not want dictatorship anymore.

So, when this coup happened, although they tried to camouflage it as if it was something they had to do according to the Constitution, the people do not buy it. They regard it as a military coup. Even people who are even the NLD – for example, the students, the Gen Z (what we call the young generation), sometimes they are quite defiant.

They even advocated non-voting because of the 2008 Constitution. Not that they don’t like the Election Commission, but they don’t like the 2008 Constitution at all because this was drawn up by the military so that they will have the upper hand throughout time. What they have done is not supporting the NLD or the election results – what they feel is that they do not want to go under the military dictatorship again. All the strata of society, from every level, came out on the street and started to protest against this military coup. So, in order to reconcile, we have to do a lot of hard work. It will take time. It will take a lot of time.

Rev. Sugino: You have just mentioned the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and the role of young people, Generation Z in it. Tell us about how you consider this revolution, or people’s resistance movement, being different from the previous uprisings and people’s protests. You had ‘88 and the Saffron Revolution, but this time there is a difference from those previous ones.

U Aye Lwin: They have felt the heat and they have had enough of this military dictatorship. They feel that if they give up now, they will be under the dictatorship for decades, so they don’t want to give up easily like what happened in 1988.

Another point is that the intelligence level, the IQ, of Myanmar people has gone up tremendously. They won’t just take whatever the dictators are saying, so their cheap propaganda is not working anymore. The military tried to use religion, and it worked for a while, but people realized that over-emphasizing religion degrades the religion that they cherish, so people are totally against people who have politicized religion and who try to manipulate the democratic system, saying that they are doing it constitutionally, lawfully, to protect democracy. That stance that the military is acting constitutionally did not get through the people, so they are out on the street against it, solidly. Now, you can find only two parties in Myanmar: one for the democracy, one for the military dictatorship. People are united, even all the ethnic races. They are now united against the military dictatorship. I think the landscape has changed a lot.

Rev. Sugino: We now move our conversation to the National Unity Government (NUG) and what the future of Myanmar will look like, but before that, you touched on the misuse of religion by political forces in the country to divide its people. That is a tactic used repeatedly, even in the last 10 years under the civilian-military democratic governance. You’re representing the Islamic Center of Myanmar, and you went through the periods of Buddhist Muslim tensions across the country, as well. How would you describe the historical and present danger of the misuse of religion to promote certain political agendas and incite discrimination and violence?

U Aye Lwin: Since the 1962 coup, the military, led by General Ne Win, tried to portray Islam as a danger to Burmese Buddhist nationalism. Islam, being a soft target and with Islamophobia going on all around the world, was targeted, and nobody sympathized with us. People were brainwashed and indoctrinated, using nationalism as a driving force and saying that Islamization would destroy the religion.

There is the notion of the need to protect the religion and the race. By religion, they mean Theravada Buddhism, and by race, they mean the Bamar race. That didn’t work for a long time, because there are a lot of minority races who are suspicious of Bamar chauvinism and who do not belong to Theravada Buddhism. Some of them are Christians, most of them are Catholics, some are Baptists also. Of course, in Rakhine State, you’ll find a lot of Muslims.

Rev. Sugino: Now the NUG, the shadow or parallel government, is being created, though the international community hasn’t recognized it yet. Parliamentarians in countries such as the UK, Malaysia, and Japan have supported and urged their governments to recognize it. Please explain to the audience the new composition of this parallel government, its limitations, and its potentials.

U Aye Lwin: Well, nobody is perfect. I’m not going to say they are the saviors of Myanmar, but I think they have done their best. One point is that they were formed by the elected, freshly elected, candidates who have won the hearts and minds of the people: not only the candidates from NLD, but those representing the ethnic races are part of the NUG.

Another point is that, since they have the grassroots-level support of people who are fed up with this military dictatorship, I think they have a strong support internally. That is the strongest point they have. Whether they are recognized internationally or not is another issue. Their strong point is that they have the support of people on the ground. Their structure is representative not only racially, but religiously, also.

Let me remind you that NUG sent a letter wishing all Muslims, during the holy month of Ramadan. When we marked the end of Ramadan, the Vice President of the NUG sent greetings to the Muslims, which has never happened in the history of Myanmar, since the time of the Myanmar kings. The Myanmar kings were very, very tolerant and they welcome the others, as I’ve told you. King Mindon, the founder of Mandalay, even built a rest house in Mecca for Myanmar Muslims. That is the spirit of Myanmar people, but they were poisoned by this military dictatorship who tried to infuse Burmese Buddhist nationalism, whipping up anti-non-Buddhist sentiment inside the people. But the spirit revived. For the first time in the history of Myanmar, Muslims received these greetings from NUG. So, I should say, with all the drawbacks and defects, the NUG is gaining ground, slowly but gradually.

Rev. Sugino: Some of the Cabinet members of the NUG have expressed an apology to the Rohingya people. We all know that in Myanmar, the Bamar majority – not only the Bamar majority, but ethnic minorities as well—didn’t recognize the Rohingya as Myanmar citizens. How do you see the change in mentality and attitude among Myanmar people – the Bamar majority and ethnic minority groups?

U Aye Lwin: The beauty of the Myanmar people is that they admit. They admitted that they do not know deeply about this issue, that they just took whatever the government propaganda was trying to propagate. They just bought it, and they sincerely felt that these people did not belong to Myanmar and that are absolute foreigners who are living in Bangladesh, who are Bangladeshis. But, after realizing the truth, and after going deeply into it – not only history, but current issues and geopolitics – they began to realize that these people were there throughout history.

And the borders, the borders are man-made, they are porous, but they are also swinging, according to the powers along the borders. Parts of Bangladesh were under the Rakhine kings for hundreds of years, and parts of Myanmar were under the Muslims, also. They were intermingling, although they were from different races and different religions.

They’ve begun to see these realities, and they’ve tried to find out what the actual facts are. The people, especially the younger generation, Gen Z, are very truthful and very sincere. They want to know the truth, and they followed the truth, so that’s why they’ve begun to acknowledge the reality of the Rohingya.

Rev. Sugino: You were part of the Kofi Annan Rakhine Commission. Things have changed since the coup, but what is your outlook on the future of Rohingya people and some of the new policies of the NUG regarding the 1982 Citizenship Law? Kindly explain the potential of solving the citizenship issues for the Rohingya population.

U Aye Lwin: In every country, there is a need for a citizenship law. We should realize that we are not against a citizenship law – we are against this 1982 Citizenship Law, which is not fair, which is not up to the international standard, and which is against human dignity. There are certain points that need to be amended. We are not against having a citizenship law, because we need such kind of a law so that we can verify who is a citizen and who is not a citizen. This is a point that we need to know.

As far as the 1982 Citizenship Law is concerned, the Kofi Annan Commission was very pragmatic. They realize that this is the existing law. We cannot ignore the existing law, we do honor it, but there are a lot of flaws in it that need to be amended. The Kofi Annan Commission does not intend to interfere or dictate what the people should do. It is up to the Myanmar people, and the Myanmar Parliament has to decide which parts should be amended and which parts should be replaced. This is up to the wishes of the Myanmar people who represented by the Myanmar Parliament. Even according to this law, there are a lot of Rohingya who could receive full citizenship, if this law was implemented sincerely, but that was not done. This is a point we have raised. But some Myanmar people feel that they need to change that law, so we have pointed out which articles should be amended. That is our stance on this 1982 Citizenship Law.

Rev. Sugino: We remember you, together with Bangladesh colleagues of Religions for Peace, visited Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazaar. We also visited Rakhine State together to negotiate with governmental authorities to create the conditions for their return. We are still struggling with this military coup, but what will be the future of the process of return for the Rohingya population?

U Aye Lwin: Well, right after the coup, the coup leaders said that they will do it according to the agreements they have reached with the Bangladeshi government and tripartite agreement they have reached with the UN agencies. That is what they have promised. But according to my assessment, I’ve been to this camp, not only one time, I’ve been there as Commissioner also.

I’ve met the people there, and the majority regard Myanmar as their homeland. They were integrated, and they are loyal, and they are dutiful to the country. So as a part and parcel of Myanmar society, Rohingya people could be an asset to the country, who will serve the country and who will be a source of good human resources. If we integrate them into our society, it will be for our benefit. With that view in mind, we should accept all those people who were residing inside Myanmar and who were hounded out of Myanmar. They should return with full dignity, with security, and with the full rights they deserve.

Rev. Sugino: As for all the other ethnic minorities, other than the Rohingya population – the fighting between the military and the ethnic armed groups is intensifying, and many people have had to flee. As a last resort and as a desperate attempt to defend themselves, the People’s Defense Force (PDF) has been created. How do you see the collaboration between the ethnic communities and other armed organizations on the one hand and the PDF in various cities and regions on the other, eventually leading to the creation of a Federal People’s Defense Army?

U Aye Lwin: Attempts have been made to disfigure this struggle. What the people are trying to do is to defend their rights, since they were assaulted, brutally and violently.

They said they have a right for self-defense. That is what they are doing. They are not for aggression, they are not for violence, they are just trying to defend themselves. That is what they are trying to do. But a different picture was painted, which tried to portray them as terrorist organizations who are terrorizing unarmed civilians. You will find a lot of arson going on: some offices have been burned down, some bombs have been blasted. We don’t know what is happening there. We recently heard about some supporters of the military regime who have branded themselves as “Pyu Saw Htee” / “Pyu Saw Ti”, a historical word saying they are defenders of the country.

They have formed their own paramilitary armed groups, so they are causing these kinds of problems that are discrediting the defense forces. There was a lot of confusion going on, a lot of commotion going on, so people outside might even feel that the peaceful protesters have turned aggressive, which is absolutely wrong. We should try to understand what is actually happening: people are trying to defend themselves. When the peaceful protests are being crushed brutally, they have to think about some way to defend themselves.

What happened in 1988 was that, after the brutal crush, people started to stop the resistance. Some of them joined the insurgent forces outside the country, but they failed. But this time, there is a coordination between every stratum of the society. Their aim is not aggression and violence, but to defend themselves.

We should make things clear, because our way of solving the problem is through negotiation and peaceful dialogue. It’ll take a lot of time. A lot of damage has been done. We have to build up confidence, and we have to create a certain landscape, so that people will be able to sit at the table and talk decently. But for that, I think, we have a long way to go. At the moment, there is a lot of violence going on inside the country, even in cities like Yangon and Mandalay.

Rev. Sugino: Transitioning to the role of the international community, ASEAN Heads of State met in April, and issued the Five-Point Consensus, trying to initiate the mediation by ASEAN through the appointment of its special envoy and constructive dialogue with all key stakeholders in the country. The ASEAN delegation has already visited the country, but there has been a tremendous delay in the implementation of the five-point plan. So how do you see ASEAN’s role in this situation, mediation and facilitation role, in resolving the crisis?  Do you have hope for the international community’s mediation efforts?

U Aye Lwin: Well, what I’ve sensed – not by all individuals’ assessment, but by assessment of the people inside Myanmar – they have given up hope for the international community. They were waiting for the UN Security Council, they had hope for the UN General Assembly, they were thinking about R2P. Nothing of that sort happened. To be more realistic, these are just utopias which cannot be implemented, so they realize that the strength lies inside the country.

As for this mediation process, especially regarding the ASEAN countries, Myanmar people realize that there are a lot of ASEAN countries which are not democratic, so they are not hoping for much from ASEAN. But since the UN General Assembly is trying to delegate an ASEAN mediator, there are some who might look to ASEAN as a mediator, but the chances are very slim, because our people have lost hope.

What has happened – I do not blame them – is that they met with the senior general, but they didn’t meet the other side. I don’t know what the actual plan was. When the spokesman for the military regime was asked by, I think, BBC or VOA regarding what the ASEAN leaders said about the opposition, he said he is not in the position to answer that. They must have said something about that; they may not publicize it. There are some negotiation tactics that may not be publicized. Maybe they are doing that in their own way, in a low-profile way. We don’t know what actually is happening. But we can say for sure, the majority of Myanmar people have no trust in ASEAN at the moment.

Rev. Sugino: In the Religions for Peace Advisory Forum process that was led by religious leaders, you included the ASEAN Member States. The balance between the Asian States’ channels and leverage for a space for dialogue and negotiations – Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, etc.- and the Western States which lead in sanctions and the cutting of any financial links with the military, was skillfully considered in the Advisory Forum process. So how do you see the impact of the engagement and action by different actors in the international community?

U Aye Lwin: Well, as far as I understand – I’m not very good at this, I’m religious-based – I think these are just carrot-and-stick tactics. There are people who will flex their muscles to force them to come to the negotiation table. There are some who will try to persuade them and try to talk sweet-sing into their mind so that they will pursue this line of negotiation and dialogue. But at the moment, we need to create circumstances so that these groups will meet at the negotiation table. There are a lot of things that need to be done before that happens. So, at the moment, this includes the cessation of violence. With the brutal assault from the military side, people are defending themselves, and it’s going to be an all-out civil war very soon. People are talking even about a failed state – not only from this physical conflict, but you will see this from the economic side also.

The banks are almost completely non-functioning. People cannot draw saving from the bank anymore. Food on the table depends on the financial status of the people, so that is not happening, and very soon there will be an economic crisis in Myanmar. Coupled with this armed insurrection, it will be very hard to go back to the negotiation table, which the religious leaders would like to do.

There are a lot of things we need to do before we can go back to the negotiation table – that is what the international community should understand. ASEAN has a role to play, with carrots, and Western countries, as stakeholders, have a role to play.

Rev. Sugino: That is an important point. Today we have members of the Religion for Peace’s global movement participating in this webinar, and Religions for Peace affiliates in different parts of the world are taking their own advocacy and action.  Some are helping the people of Myanmar through the support for the CDM. Some of them are campaigning against arms transfers through the global arms embargo campaign. I think Hon. Ela Gandhi from South Africa who is also participating in today’s webinar is helping with that type of advocacy at home and internationally. Some of Religion for Peace’s other colleagues have sent support, humanitarian assistance, through different channels, to the people of Myanmar.

Here in New York, we have communicated to ASEAN and the UN Security Council Member States. We are using different channels and taking multi-layered approaches to this crisis. Please describe to us the important role religious leaders and communities can play inside Myanmar, and, perhaps, in solidarity and unity with you, how religious leaders outside of Myanmar can play a role.

U Aye Lwin: Religion is still a driving force among people in Myanmar. It’s the same all over the world. So, we do have some role to play in these negotiations, but we have to be clear on one point, that the signal is very clear: we don’t want any more dictatorship. We want full democracy. The coup leaders are also saying that they are trying to defend democracy, but they need to prove that. They need to prove that on the ground, in how they are dealing with the opposition and how they are dealing with the people. Those who are making efforts to put some sense in the head of these people, they have to understand this position very clearly.

There is zero tolerance for any type of totalitarianism and militarism, so that needs to be very clear in the mindsets of the people who will be mediating in this crisis. We need to put some sense into those stakeholders and try to make them realize that things will not work in the ways they are now approaching them. They need to change, there needs to be a drastic change in their conduct. If not, I think worse will happen.

Rev. Sugino: How do you view the timing of religious leaders’ possible mediation efforts and facilitation of dialogue? We are currently in a crisis situation and, as you said, things are quite difficult. Any effort of mediation or call for dialogue with the military at this time may not be well understood and received by the people. In the future trajectory of things, how do you see the place and the timing for religious leaders in mediation?

U Aye Lwin: There are people from both sides who listen to the religious leaders. You must have heard about the sad news regarding a plane crash where very prominent Buddhist monk was on that military plane. That shows that the military junta also have some respect for the religion that they believe.

If the religious leaders could try and make them understand the reality on the ground, there are certain things that they would need to do, certain things they would need to accomplish before starting the negotiation. For example, to stop the oppression of the people. They need to release all the political prisoners, starting from the President, and then they need to show their sincerity on the ground by the way the treat the CDM – not only the government employees, but also the people on the ground, who are really the main basic factors of this State Administrative Council (SAC). They should show by action and deed that they do not want to antagonize them, but that they are trying to uplift democratic principles. They need to release all the political prisoners and start the negotiation from their side first, to take the initiative, to take the first step, because they are the ones who have the upper hand.

Rev. Sugino: And as we know, religious leaders have linkages and channels with all the parties, ethnic groups, the military, and the NLD leaders at the highest level as well. Cardinal Charles Bo, for instance arranged a private meeting between the Military Commander-in-Chief and Pope Francis when the Pope visited the country. How do you see them maintaining these channels as opportunities for constructive dialogue and mediation? How do you see the role of religious leaders in Myanmar in such dialogue and mediation?

U Aye Lwin: At the moment, I think everybody has quite had it. It will take a lot of time to put sense in their heads, but we should keep on trying. We should express our sincerity and try to win their confidence. Once they have confidence in the religious leaders, religious leaders could be good mediators, standing as non-partial mediators who will be very sincere in their judgment. If we can prove our integrity, I think we’ll be able to buy the confidence of both sides, especially from the junta. If we could do that, the religious leaders’ role will be very prominent, especially since Myanmar happens to be Theravada-Buddhist-dominated country, so the role of the monks is very important. At the moment, the people, the majority of whom are very pious Buddhists, have lost faith in those leading monks who are revered by the military leaders. Instead of trying to put them on the right path, the feel that they are supporting them in their totalitarian scheme of things. That is a misunderstanding currently happening between the religious leaders and their followers, especially in the Buddhist society.

Rev. Sugino: Thank you so much Al Haj U Aye Lwin. With your permission and with the permission of the audience, let us conclude this session with solidarity and prayer for the people of Myanmar who are undergoing this tremendous suffering and pain, but never give up aspirations for an inclusive and democratic nation with the spirit of unity in diversity. Let us take a moment of silence to end this session.

Thank you Al Haj U Aye Lwin for your sharing today and thank you all of the participants from Myanmar and from across the globe.

U Aye Lwin: Thank you so much. I thank the Religions for Peace headquarter for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on my beloved country. We need to do a lot of work at the moment. There is such confusion on the ground, conflicts going on, that we need to find the true way to solve this problem. Thank you very much.