Elections ‘a cynical process of fake regime change’

Thursday, 23 September 2010 01:57 Mizzima News

New Delhi (Mizzima) – Human Rights Watch Asia section senior researcher David Scott Mathieson on Tuesday described Burmese elections in November as an “elaborate scheme to ensure future power for the military”.

His comments came after a panel discussion on Burma and Tibet hosted by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia in the Indian capital of New Delhi last night, during a tour in which he will meet Indian UNHCR and Human Rights Watch representatives.

According to the Australian National University website, the PhD candidate’s research looks “at the relationship between civilians and insurgents, conflict displacement, the political economy of war and the politics and history of modern Burma”.

As part of his research and his work with Human Rights Watch, he has done fieldwork in border areas of Thailand, Burma, Malaysia and India, and spent a lot of time working with displaced Shan communities and refugees along the Thai-Burmese border.

After a talk that focused mainly on Burma’s upcoming polls, Mathieson spoke to Mizzima’s Pamela Sanyal and Suchetana Paul on a range of issues surrounding political realities in Burma, the elections and the conditions under which they are being held.

Do you think the upcoming elections will be beneficial for the people of Burma?

I can’t say that the coming elections are beneficial for the majority of people in Burma at all, and in fact, the elections are not really for the people of Burma but for the military and people close to them, to gain legitimacy. You’re seeing a transfer of the centre of power from serving military officers to a parliament that is the same thing. Retired military officers’ wearing civilian clothes instead of uniforms is the same thing. This parliament is all about preserving the current power structure, just modified a little bit for the foreign audience. But I don’t think that many people in Burma will be relieved because it’s not designed to actually incorporate most people in the country. Most of the people have been excluded from it. So no, I don’t think it’s going to benefit many people at all.

Many activists, NGOs, Western governments and Burma analysts have described the upcoming elections as a sham? What is your take on this characterisation?

I would call it a sham, a travesty and a cynical process of fake regime change. It’s an elaborate scheme to ensure future power for the military.

In what ways does Human Rights Watch support the struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma?

We don’t necessarily support the struggle so much; our job is to document human rights violations and abuses with the aim of seeking change. We don’t take sides and stand by the victims of human rights violations everywhere. That includes victims of abuses by the Burmese military but also victims of abuses by the non-state armed groups in Burma. We are there to promote respect for human rights and necessarily, respect for democracy is part of that. Our role is documentation to affect change.

Since 2007, why has there been a doubling in the number of political prisoners?

It’s really because you had a dispute group of people working in different areas in Rangoon, but also other places of Burma, who were staging non-confrontational, far more effective campaigns and demonstrations against the government. They were writing letters to [Senior] General Than Shwe and were doing demonstrations about declining living standards about electricity and poor health. Basically, [they were] raising issues through a lot of people in the country who were feeling frustrated. The military saw them always as a threat and realised that by arresting representatives … [from across the movements’ leadership] it would decapitate any kind of a merging social movement in the country. So that doubling was really about a thousand people [who] represented a broader threat to military rule because of the potential for broader society to come behind that kind of movement. So, basically, the leaders of an alternative division of Burma are in prison.

What would you say about Than Shwe’s recent visit to India and the signing of the five treaties?

I think it’s far more positive for the Burmese military and certain business people. They will benefit from it, but I don’t say that it’s going to benefit the people of India that much. Than Shwe came to India to get support from the Indian government and several weeks later went to China to do pretty much the same thing. He’s basically selling off the financial wealth of Burma to ensure their [the junta and its leadership] hold on power and to buy, if not loyalty from the neighbours, then neutrality. That’s what he is achieving by this.

What are Human Rights Watch’s current and future projects with regards to Burma?

HRW has done a lot of work for the past few years on a number of issues: on political prisoners; we did big investigations on post-Cyclone Nargis; child soldiers; and we’re doing a lot of work on calls for a [UN] commission of inquiry into serious violations of humanitarian law. We’re also looking at the elections as closely as we can at the moment. We plan our work on looking at the most serious human rights situation in the country and unfortunately, with a country such as Burma, there are a lot of situations that we have to look at. So, we’ll be following the post-election landscape … very closely. But also looking at abuses in ethnic conflict areas and basically looking towards the future; looking at what kind of country Burma is becoming and how we can help; [we’re] more [of an] independent, research and advocacy organisation. We’re just one voice in many international systems; we document very carefully human rights violations in the country with the aim of actually making positive changes and will continue to do that.

How do you think HRW could try to help the Burmese people more?

Our work everywhere is about documenting serious violations and following that documentation and reporting through into getting policy change. We do a lot of different work on refugee protection, protection of migrant workers, the death penalty, [in] really hard-core conflict areas such as the Congo, Afghanistan. We’re not a service delivery organisation, which makes us a little different. We don’t provide tents, blankets and food to people. We’re purely a research and advocacy organisation.

Do you think that as Burma is a divided society, it paves the way for exploitation by the military junta to justify its repressive rule?

I think successive military regimes have benefited from deep divisions within the society; that they’ve also existed to achieve their aims. This is not just in terms of the ethnic differences … but also between rich and poor and between different regions. People in Upper Burma and Burman areas have very few ideas about what it’s like in Rangoon and other places. So I think it’s a very simplistic, effective, brutal way of keeping power in the country; exploiting divide and rule.

Is it true that many political prisoners, like those who had won seats in the last election, are expelled from contesting in the upcoming elections because they propose a challenge to the military government?

I think that every political prisoner poses a challenge on some level to the junta; that’s why they’re in prison. Whether they’re from the National League for Democracy; whether they’re people like Min Ko Naing from various generations of students and many other people. …There are cross sections of Burmese society who have chosen to stand up and speak up [and] that’s why they’re in prison. Not necessarily because of what they’ve said but because of what they represent to the broader society and that is a threat to the regime. That’s why we do a lot of work trying to promote who these people are and the disgrace of the way they’ve been treated. It’s not just what’s being done to them; it’s what’s being done to Burmese society as well. They are a broader cross section; they are a promise of what Burmese society could actually be there.

George Soros of OSI donated US$100 million to Human Rights Watch over 10 years. Will that influx of funds benefit the promotion of human rights and democracy in Burma as a part of that extension plan?

I can’t comment on that.

Is Human Rights Watch taking any steps against the military junta?

We don’t take steps against anyone, we document situations as we see it and we advocate with various governments, agencies and communities around the world to improve human rights situations wherever we find them. We are completely independent and basically expose perpetrators of human rights violations, and try to get them ended and to protect people. Our basic function is the promotion of human rights around the world.

Do you think that by signing agreements with Than Shwe, India is indirectly supporting military rule?

Yes, in merely by doing deals with Than Shwe and bringing him to India; they’re [India’s leaders are] supporting an authoritarian system. But India’s doing this for some kind of self-interest; it’s not as if it loves dealing with dictators. They’re doing it to get trade opportunities and capture the influence from China, which is emerging and growing in Burma. I think India could have a better impact in different ways if a change were to emerge. It could still invest in and engage with Burma in far more productive ways for Burmese people if it just didn’t deal with the Burmese military. It needs to make it very clear that it will not sell any weapons to Burma; if it makes investments, those investments must benefit local communities and must be up to the international standards of human rights monitoring and human rights environmental impacts, absolutely. Also, [India should] seek a long-term growing engagement with Burmese civil society and I think India can play a very important role in that support; not just within communities in Burma but by including bright and young people out of India and training them in a number of different professions. India shouldn’t just see it [engagement] in terms of self-interest but in future, long-term [benefits].

Will China have more influence on Burma or India in the near future?

I think China has a lot of influence on the military leadership in Burma … I don’t think any country has complete influence over the military regime. I think they play countries off each other all the time to get what they want; they’re very skilled in that. I think that China is probably their most important bilateral partner at the moment, but again that could change. That should be the approach of the West – actually engaging various levels of Burmese society and not necessarily the army … to counter that influence. [The West should] At least provide a bit of competition for China and India should do that as well.

Is China providing arms and ammunition to Burma’s military?

Yes, China’s been providing weapons and military training for more than 22 years. They started in 1988 and it’s still providing a lot of weapons, some are from the Russians and North Koreans. This is what is actually fuelling the military authoritarian system in which the military expands and recruits more soldiers. So every time someone from a different country sells weapons you’re actually making sure that the military stays in power. That’s one thing India could do very clearly, saying “we will not sell weapons to the Burmese military at all”.