“If it goes on and on, I may decide to step down. It has been going on in my mind - how long more, how long more?” he said.

Razali, who last visited Burma in August, said he had expected talks between the Burmese military government and Aung San Suu Kyi to take place within a short time after his departure.

“(The government) didn’t give a time but they said (the dialogue) would take place very soon... In my understanding, ‘very soon’ would be like a couple of weeks or three to four weeks. It has been more than that,” he lamented in an exclusive interview with malaysiakini last week.

Razali is due to make his ninth visit to Burma tomorrow since his appointment to the UN post two years ago.

Despite initial optimism, leaders of the Rangoon government and Suu Kyi have not met since the opposition leader’s release from house arrest in May.

Seek to get momentum moving

The UN envoy also said he is willing to consider taking on a larger role as mediator to the reconciliation talks if he is required to do so by the Burmese parties.

However, he expressed clear frustration at the pace of the talks saying that he might decide to step down if he chalks no further progress.

“I want to see a situation where there is negotiation and it comes to the point of irreversibility. And all the parties, including the ethnic groups, are all together.

Questioned about his agenda for his upcoming five-day trip to Rangoon, Razali said he hopes to revitalise the move towards a dialogue between the two sides.

“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 again as agreed to by all parties before,” he said.

Meanwhile, the slow pace of progress has also raised concern among several parties interested in the developments in Burma.

Losing steam

In a Nov 1 statement, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed concern that the move towards political reform in Burma is losing steam and urged for a quick launch to substantive dialogues.

“It is only through an all-inclusive dialogue that Myanmar will be able to ensure that national reconciliation is durable and the transition to democracy smooth,” said Annan in a report to the UN General Assembly.

Annan also called for the release of all remaining political prisoners in the country and for the elimination of all remaining restriction on the activities of legal political parties.

Last September, the United States State Department issued a statement expressing its disappointment that Rangoon has “failed to follow through on steps toward national reconciliation”.

In 1990, Suu Kyi and her National League of Democracy won a landside victory in democratic elections but this was not recognised by the country’s military junta. ( By Yap Mun Ching )

Razali Ismail's Q&A: ‘How long more, how long more?’

What do you hope to achieve for your next visit to Myanmar (*formerly known as Burma)?

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.

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

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.

Is Khin Nyunt (photo) considered the one most supportive of the talks?

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.

Did they say when they would meet for the dialogue?

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.

Are you surprised that the talks have not progressed?

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.

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?

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.

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

I do not allow myself to debate or agonise 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.

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.

First, the word ‘compromise' shouldn't be use. 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 neighbours 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.

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

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 labour 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.

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

Of course, everybody would be happy with that.

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

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.

But they did in the 1990 elections...

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 criticising the government. It is about finding a way out.

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

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 recognise in some way the results of 1990 — and go on to have another elections. It is not impossible.

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.)

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?

[*Note: Since 1989, Burma was renamed Myanmar by the military government. However, many have not embraced the name change as the decision was made by an illegal and illegitimate government.]