Episode #286: Breaking Burma
“[In] the Myanmar military, [there] is a culture of recreational sadism,” says David Mathieson. “I got in trouble [for saying that]. Some people during the so-called transition, people in Yangon, were like, 'Why do you keep saying things like that? The military is changing!' Like, no, they're not; they're changing the way they talk to you, to elites, but they're not changing on the ground. And if you spent as much time speaking to survivors of military violence, you'll notice that they torture and kill basically for sport. There's no logic behind it, other than, ‘We can get away with this!’”
David Mathieson, a longtime advocate, activist, and scholar focused on human rights in Myanmar, delves into his analysis of the country’s political situation, focusing in particular on the military's institutional mindset. His interest in Myanmar began in the early 1990s, driven by the scarcity of informed discussions about the country. This curiosity led him to explore the history and intricacies of Burmese insurgency and military control, including key events such as the 1988 pro-democracy uprising and the military’s consolidation of power thereafter. He reflects on how it has able to cling to power, despite being widely unpopular and fostering fear, and often even acting against its own self-interests. Mathieson suggests that the 2021 coup is one such example, a counterproductive move that led to economic collapse and increased international isolation.
Mathieson characterizes the military as being driven by arrogance, entitlement, and what he terms above as “recreational sadism”: its obsession with dominance and coercion rather than any attempt to win the support of the population. He points out that the institutional loyalty expected in the military stems from deeply entrenched narratives about nationalism and protecting the state. It holds a deep-seated belief that it alone is essential to the nation's survival, and soldiers are conditioned into believing that without them, Myanmar would disintegrate into chaos and infighting. Mathieson believes this often blinds followers to the detrimental impacts of their leaders' actions while fostering a kind of messianic self-image.
Mathieson also addresses the Myanmar military's inability to evolve in its approach to counterinsurgency and population control. It just relies on brute force in a misguided belief that people can be controlled through fear and violence, despite mounting evidence that this only leads to further instability, reducing prospects for reconciliation and progress. A key example Mathieson provides is the Rohingya crisis of 2017, where the military's tactics led to international condemnation and accusations of genocide, further isolating Myanmar and deepening internal conflict.
Shifting his focus to the international community’s understanding of Myanmar’s complex reality, Mathieson critiques international narratives that oversimplify Myanmar’s complex socio-political landscape. He emphasizes the need to consult Burmese-led scholarship and understand local perspectives, which he believes will lead to a more empathetic and informed perspective. For example, the military is often portrayed as a monolithic evil and the opposition as pure victims, but he underscores that both the military and ethnic armed organizations are complicated entities, each with their own internal contradictions and motivations, all of which need to be examined in depth to accurately grasp the ongoing conflict. He mentions groups like the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Arakan Army (AA) that have their own political agendas and historical grievances that complicate the landscape of resistance.
Mathieson points to the failures of past attempts at the peace process, which he says are due to the military's insistence on dominance and their inability to understand or address the legitimate grievances of ethnic groups. This lack of willingness to engage meaningfully perpetuates a cycle of mistrust and unrest. He cites as an example the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) of 2015, which he argues was deeply flawed from the outset. Despite its promises, the NCA excluded key ethnic armed groups and became little more than a symbolic gesture, as the military continued aggressive operations in ethnic regions. According to Mathieson, the NCA’s failure reflected not only the regime’s insincerity, but also the complicity of international supporters who endorsed the agreement, thereby legitimizing a flawed peace process. This dynamic has only further entrenched distrust between the ethnic groups and the military, blocking any path to genuine peace. Yet rather than acknowledging the need to change its approach, the military has remained entrenched in its failed vision, which only deepens divisions and prolongs violence. Ultimately, Mathieson paints a picture of Myanmar as a country caught in the grip of a military that consistently acts irrationally and often self-defeatingly, enacting a reign of fear and division while insisting on national unity.
“[The military] has taken a pasting unlike anything in 70 years! There's a belief in their purpose, in their mission, their self-worth, but also increasingly a belief in overwhelming firepower. When they murdered scores of civilians with airstrikes and artillery strikes, I've heard for the past two years that this is the SAC being desperate. I don't think it's desperation at all! I think it's a tactic of war, it's them going, ‘If you want to resist us, we'll kill 150 of you, we don't care! Murdering civilians is something we've done for decades, and we'll continue to do it!’ One element of their strategy of survival is murdering the way out of it. And that's a deplorable, a disgusting realization. But you see the evidence for it every day.”
If you enjoyed this interview with David Mathieson, you may find the following past episodes of interest as well:
· Scot Marciel discusses critical issues he faced during his tenure as the former US Ambassador to Myanmar, such as the lifting of sanctions, complexities around ethnic identity, and the difficult diplomatic decisions made during the Rohingya crisis. Marciel’s firsthand accounts offer a nuanced understanding of Myanmar's evolving landscape, adding a dimension of diplomatic engagement that contextualizes the challenges and opportunities in supporting Myanmar's path to reform.
· Kyaw San Hlaing describes the complex historical and political context of Rakhine State. He analyzes the agendas and actions of key players like the Arakan Army (AA) and other political factions as he explores the evolving crisis in this region.
· Manny Maung, from Human Rights Watch, offers an unflinching look at the country’s shattered legal system, where arbitrary detentions and martial law reshape the daily lives of civilians. Her insights provides listeners with a sobering look into the regime's strategies of control and the devastating impact on Myanmar’s population.
· Nathan Ruser, a satellite imagery expert, offers a unique perspective on the dynamics of the country's conflict, explaining how this technology helps clarify changing military control, resistance gains, and the strategic importance of terrain. His insights into the ongoing territorial shifts bring an analytical depth and real-time relevance.
· Roger Huang explores the military’s internal logic and long-standing grip on power, dissecting its vision of “disciplined democracy” and the strategic, trial-and-error approach that has shaped Myanmar’s political landscape. His analysis challenges the notion of democratization as linear, providing a context that helps situate Mathieson’s focus on Myanmar’s resistance movements and societal fractures.