You arrived in Yangon just before President Obama won the 2008 election. How has the US-Myanmar relationship changed since then?

I arrived at the Yangon embassy on September 3, 2008. Since then, US core interests here haven’t changed at all. The new Obama administration in Washington has conducted a policy review that reconfirmed the US desire for more peaceful, prosperous, and democratic governance here. The review did propose to increase engagement at more senior levels in hopes of making progress on the important issues, while maintain-ing sanctions until concrete progress is made. Bilateral discussions began in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly.

Also, US humanitarian assistance after Cyclone Nargis has reconfirmed that people at the grass roots here have serious needs that the US can help address. The US review accented a willingness to expand our humanitarian assistance here in the future. I see that as a very positive development.

What is your response to critics who claim Myanmar’s new constitution will not bring about civilian rule?

The issue of the constitution and the 2010 elections came up in Washington’s review of its Myanmar policy, and the conclusion was to “wait and see”. Wait and see how processes here go forward. It would not make sense to be making definitive statements from the outside about a system that will be in place for an election until you actually see it. We also want to see how the various potential political players here respond to the announced system and we don’t have any of that information yet.

What’s the US embassy’s relationship with the National League for Democracy and other local political parties? How much contact do you have with them?

The embassy’s purpose here is to try to gain an understanding of what goes on in this country and to do that we need to talk to all parties and participants. I try to go up to Nay Pyi Taw and talk to [government officials], I talk to the NLD, I talk to the ethnic groups, I talk to other people who are thinking about participating in the political process in 2010. That’s my job. We’re not directing anyone when we have those conversations. We’re just trying to understand how this place works, and how we might be able to help in the process of developing the future of this country. We’d like to be a positive element here, and everywhere in the world.

Is there any advice given at these meetings?

No. We really do believe that decisions about the political future here need to be made by the people here. The US doesn’t believe that’s our job. The NLD, [National Unity Party] and others who might want to participate, [such as] ethnic parties – they’ll have to make their own judgement about whether they should participate in the system. Most of them are waiting to see what the rules are before they make those judgements, but we’re certainly not guiding anybody.

What do you have to say to those who argue the NLD has made itself redundant?

It’s impossible to know the strength of the various political groupings in a scientific way, because as far as I’m aware, there is no scientific polling carried out in this country. So you can listen on the street corners, you can talk to various observers and pundits, and we do, but to really judge political strength you need to hold free and fair elections and see what happens.

Do you have an agreement with the Myanmar government to send monitors to help carry out the 2010 elections?

No. They haven’t asked, and we haven’t offered. It would be very premature for either side to think about that because election laws have not been promulgated, party laws have not been promulgated [and] the exact election date has not been finalised. All those things are necessary before anyone contem-plates details of an election process – but we have not been asked.

However, we’re very interested in how the process goes forward. We believe in free and fair elections as a way of attempting to ensure that the government serves people’s needs and are responsive to their requirements. We have a lot of confidence in free and effective elections, but it’s not our job to set up all the rules for any country. There are lots of different electoral systems and democratic systems, and each country should determine the system that works best. We do think there are certain basic principles: all who are interested ought to be able to participate, organise, and vote freely. Also, the compilation of those votes should occur in a very transparent manner and after that is over everyone should abide by the results.

What role should the media play in the democratic process?

I don’t know what role the [Myanmar] government envisions for the media on the road to democracy, but my sense is it has to have a central role if the system is to have the people’s interests at heart. Every society needs independent observers looking at what’s happening politically, economically, socially and reporting their perspectives.

It doesn’t always work, the media doesn’t always get things right, but having the capacity to reach the public with an independent perspective will keep politicians on their toes.

Are local reporters and journals capable of covering the elections effectively?

We won’t know unless they have the opportunity. My embassy is attempting to provide training to journalists – every country needs to have training for its journalists, including my own. The more professional journalists are, the more capable they are of covering events as complicated as elections.

I would hope that in the lead up to the 2010 elections local and international journalists would be allowed to move around and talk to people and report their stories. If there’s a free and fair election as the government has said it intends to put on there should be no concern about allowing journalists to go around reporting.

International media have a lot more experience [working] in a free media environment, [while] local media have a lot more knowledge of the country and the complications of the country so each can play valuable roles.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last month, the Assistant Secretary of State Mr Kurt Campbell identified some “initial positive steps” the Myanmar government could take to improve relations between the US and Myanmar. When can we expect to see progress on these issues?

Part of the [US policy] review noted areas in which we can cooperate short of the core political and human rights issues. The missing remains of soldiers from WWII is an area where there’s been some cooperation in the past. For several years there were efforts made to find some sites and recover remains. That ended in 2004, but there are still plenty of missing remains from WWII that have not been found and there remains a strong desire on the part of the US find and take them home to their families.

The post-Cyclone Nargis experience, during which we provided US$75 million of assistance to people on the ground, was good for both our governments. Washington observed that we could effectively provide assistance to people on the ground who are in desperate humanitarian need, and it was good for Nay Pyi Taw to observe that outside assistance could be provided without political repercussions. There’s plenty of need across this country, not just down in the [Ayeyarwady] delta, and the US is pretty good at providing assistance and would like to do more.

We already have some cooperation on counter-narcotics efforts. There is a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) office here at the embassy. They work with the Nay Pyi Taw counter-narcotics officials on investigations and have done so cooperatively. Myanmar’s opium production is down significantly from the past and methamphet-amines are also a huge issue. So there’s still a lot to be done there.

The state-run newspaper New Light of Myanmar published a story earlier this month criticising the US for overlooking Myanmar’s counter-narcotics efforts. What’s your response to that?

The annual counter-narcotics efforts review that the US undertakes deserves reading because this year’s review acknowledges that some useful efforts, including joint efforts, [have taken place] between our two governments, and that all is not negative. It acknowledges, though, that huge amounts of methamphetamines are going across the border and there are still parts of the country where traffickers seem to operate with relative impunity.

We oppose traffickers regardless of their geographic location and ethnicity. We don’t think it’s an appropriate industry to be involved in and we are trying to fight it and find ways to work with the government here to fight it.

The recently completed policy review concluded that there should be greater engagement with the Myanmar government. Structurally, how will that engagement process be carried out? Will there be an envoy?

The Jade Act passed in July 2008 included in its provisions that the US would appoint a special envoy to deal with Myanmar. The Obama administration has not yet done so, but one of the points in the recent review was that the administration realises it has a need to appoint an envoy and will do so. The responsibilities of that envoy are not laid out in the legislation, and one of the things that the administration will need to do when it appoints that envoy is state what that envoy’s job is.

The US downgraded the post of ambassador in Myanmar following events in 1988. Do you expect to see a change in your title by the end of your term here?

At the time the change was made it was clearly a political statement. This was a way to very visibly and symbolically express dissatisfaction without breaking relations, which have continued all along.

Will my title change during my time here? I don’t know, but I’m not expecting it to change any time soon. I think that issue is dependent still on the politics of the relationship between the US and this country and if there are major positive developments, particularly on the core political issues that were discussed in the review then lots of things can happen. [Without] those kinds of really significant developments, it will be difficult to make those kinds of changes.