“I Do Not See an Alternative to Dialogue”

By the time we had a second meeting with those same ministers of the authoritative team [that was] empowered to speak on behalf of the government, chaired by the minister of information along with the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of culture, it was a different atmosphere. Though they had not changed their position, it was at least much more positive and much friendlier. So there is room [for dialogue].

Also, those who are running the referendum, the referendum convening committee, seem to be open to the idea of discussing further the need for technical assistance and even the offer of—idea of—an independent monitor.

Q: What did you tell them? What was their reaction?

A: Their initial reaction was, “We are a sovereign country. We have done these things before, without international help.” But our position is that their situation has been the subject of international concern, so [there is a need] to enhance the credibility of the process, to meet the exercise of their sovereign right to ask for help. … Technical assistance or even independent monitors need not come from the UN—it could be from international monitors or neighboring countries or from friendly countries. In the case of technical assistance, I told them that as many as 57 member countries have requested [such help from] the UN in the last two years and we responded to 50 of them. I know this because in my previous capacity as head of the Department of Political Affairs, I was the focal point of electoral assistance for the entire UN system.

Q: So do you think they will consider your offer of technical assistance and independent monitors before the referendum?

A: I sincerely hope so.

Q: What is the next step?

A: The next step is to continue our conversation, because our engagement with the authorities is not an event, it is a process. Sometimes you get a lot more out of a visit than at other times, but it is a process. It is an incremental process and we keep open the process of dialogue. The government wants it; so do the [National League for Democracy] and Aung San Suu Kyi. The [UN] secretary-general, of course, on whose behalf I act, [wants the process to continue] and so does the president of the General Assembly, who issued a statement after I briefed him about the continuation of the process. The Security Council also backed the continuation of the process. So we will continue the engagement, continue to impress upon [the government] the need to embrace some of these ideas in order to enhance the credibility of their own process, which they have chosen.

Q: Should we expect your next visit before the referendum?

A: It is not likely that I will go back to Myanmar (Burma) before the referendum. Of course, surprises could come, but there are other opportunities to engage. We could meet with the regime in a third country. There are many alternatives, but the important point is to keep the process of dialogue open.

Q: When you were in Burma, the official Burmese media were very critical of you.

A: Right.

Q: Since your return, pro-democracy groups and independent observers have also been very critical of you.

A: Maybe if I am criticized from both sides, it means I am doing something right. I think these comments come out of some frustration.

Q: Could you explain? There are some who say that your mission has failed.

A: The government is frustrated by the fact that the sanctions are still on them, despite what they consider to be the significant steps they have taken. They think they are not getting any credit for it from the international community. On the contrary, some countries have actually increased their sanctions or threatened to do so. Secondly, they feel that each time I return from a visit and they cooperate, I brief the Security Council and the Security Council makes a statement criticizing them. So they feel frustrated. I explained to them, the antidote to all these criticisms by the Security Council or sanctions is more cooperation and not less with the good offices role of the secretary-general, so we can show tangible results. So this is [the source of] frustration on the part of the government.

On the part of the pro-democracy groups, of course, they want change to be faster.