Speaker 1: Everyone. It's just me today, James again, and I'm talking
Speaker 1: today with my friend Billy Billy Ford. Billy is a
Speaker 1: program officer for the Burma team at the United States
Speaker 1: Institute of Peace. And do you want to say hello, Billy, James,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining it. Yeah, thanks for joining us. Without
Speaker 1: a decent introduction, have I summed up what you don't
Speaker 1: want to get that wrong? So people will have heard
Speaker 1: Billy before and or heard from Billy when we finished
Speaker 1: our last series on them, where we spoke about the
Speaker 1: funding that the PDFs are using and how they're using
Speaker 1: a lot of unique and really innovative methods to continue
Speaker 1: to support their revolution when they're not getting very much
Speaker 1: at all in the way of international support, and certainly
Speaker 1: nothing compared to countries like Ukraine. But what we wanted
Speaker 1: to talk a little bit about today was the s
Speaker 1: a C or the Hunter's attempts at kind of staging
Speaker 1: a sham election, which they've sort of back off on.
Speaker 1: Can you explain a little bit about what they had
Speaker 1: proposed and then what they maybe what they're doing now, right? Yeah. Um,
Speaker 1: So the expectation was upon UM instigating the coup February
Speaker 1: that UM the state of emergency would end on UM February,
Speaker 1: which was two days ago, UM, giving them six months
Speaker 1: after that, uh, that period to kind of undertake an election.
Speaker 1: And so the expectation was that before August one, there
Speaker 1: would be this sort of sham electoral process UM, and
Speaker 1: the the Hunter would essentially structure of the process in
Speaker 1: such a way that they they're there, their political party,
Speaker 1: the U s DP, would prevail, UM, and that the
Speaker 1: Commander in Chief men online who runs the HUNTA would
Speaker 1: and as he had dreamed to become the president of
Speaker 1: the country and kind of rule in a military dictatorship model,
Speaker 1: but under kind of these auspices of civilian governance. So
Speaker 1: that was the expectation. But things have changed, as you
Speaker 1: kind of alluded to. Yeah, so they've they've said they've
Speaker 1: got to extend for another six months. Who's that right,
Speaker 1: that's right? UM, So they said they would extend for
Speaker 1: another six months until August first. But then this morning
Speaker 1: they also announced a new political, Economic, and Social objectives
Speaker 1: which includes a five point road map UM, which, for
Speaker 1: those of you who have been following m R for
Speaker 1: some time, is often the way that they frame their
Speaker 1: UM kind of sham and circuitous approaches to civilian governance. UM.
Speaker 1: But UM that articulates a series of reforms, restoring law
Speaker 1: and order, you know, social development, implementing a peace process,
Speaker 1: and then holding elections UM. And this is I think
Speaker 1: indicates to most people that elections are very unlikely to
Speaker 1: occur any time in the near future. UM. They did
Speaker 1: something almost identical in two thousand and four articulating a
Speaker 1: roadmap to democracy, and that didn't really start until two
Speaker 1: thousand and ten, UM, where when there were elections and
Speaker 1: there weren't really meaningful ones until UM. This is kind
Speaker 1: of an indication to I think a lot of folks
Speaker 1: that UM elections are unlikely this year and that there's
Speaker 1: kind of a long road ahead. UH. The interesting element
Speaker 1: of this will be to see how the the hunta's
Speaker 1: kind of enablers in the international community, including Thailand, China,
Speaker 1: and India in particular, how they will respond, in part
Speaker 1: because they were pushing the sac very hard to undertake
Speaker 1: these elections as a potential off ramp to the horrifying
Speaker 1: violence that is UM that resulted from the coup and UM,
Speaker 1: you know, all the atrocities that the SEC has committed.
Speaker 1: Maybe we could talk a little bit about the international
Speaker 1: support they have because it's still quite significant, and like
Speaker 1: especially in terms of propping up their military force through
Speaker 1: the use of air power they can and they don't
Speaker 1: have domestic like fighting yet manufacturing, right, So can you
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about that, Like I think they
Speaker 1: received a couple more planes very recently, right, Yeah, from
Speaker 1: UM the Chinese. UM. Yeah. There it's kind of an
Speaker 1: interesting dynamic whereby you have a an entire country of
Speaker 1: fifty three ish million people UM fighting against a tiny
Speaker 1: military institution of about five or fewer if you include
Speaker 1: their families and all the medics UM. And that tiny
Speaker 1: institution is being supported by just a handful of countries UM.
Speaker 1: As I said, kind of China, Russia, UH to a
Speaker 1: certain agree, Indian and Thailand, UM, and a few others UM.
Speaker 1: And the vast mo jority of the world is kind
Speaker 1: of opposes this military takeover and the subsequent dictatorship and
Speaker 1: all the her indos atrocities that they've committed. UM. And
Speaker 1: so there's quite a lot of international actors who are
Speaker 1: providing kind of UM rhetorical support to the resistance and
Speaker 1: some you know, support to civil society and humanitarian assistance
Speaker 1: and others. But you know, on balance the support that
Speaker 1: the Chinese, Indians Russians in particular UM have provided in
Speaker 1: terms of material assistance to the s A c UM
Speaker 1: as well as the diplomatic assistance that the Chinese provide
Speaker 1: at the Security Council in particular, but also the Ties
Speaker 1: provide UM with an ascion is you know for outweighs
Speaker 1: the rhetorical and small material assistance at the West and
Speaker 1: UM you know other supporters of the resistance movements have
Speaker 1: provided UM so yes, to answer your question, the you know,
Speaker 1: the Chinese and Indians continue to provide material military assistance
Speaker 1: to the s A c UM. And you know, my
Speaker 1: question is kind of what is there theory of change
Speaker 1: here and how will UM supporting the SAC militarily lead
Speaker 1: to anything like stabilization. It's just kind of perplexing to
Speaker 1: me when both countries are very UM interested in in
Speaker 1: in supporting US a level of functional stability so they
Speaker 1: can undertake their economic and geopolitical objectives UM, many of
Speaker 1: which go through my Mr UM. I just don't really
Speaker 1: understand how they see kind of a military victory bry
Speaker 1: the s A c as a pathway to stabilization when
Speaker 1: you have an entire nation that has risen up against
Speaker 1: UH the dictatorship and has wholly rejected it and demonstrated
Speaker 1: that they're willing to make the these incredible sacrifices to
Speaker 1: UM to ensure that this coup does not succeed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is. It's very perfecting because like it's not in
Speaker 1: in any sort of conventional sense like a consolidated regime
Speaker 1: and no show any chance of being one. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: it doesn't even have territorial control of a large sways
Speaker 1: of the country that they claims. Yeah, exactly, and you're
Speaker 1: you're even hearing this. I mean, there's been quite a
Speaker 1: bit of research, contested research that that shows the HUNTA
Speaker 1: has less than fifty control. But even today you are differ.
Speaker 1: Yesterday you heard from an online the the hunter leader
Speaker 1: UM that he's now admitting that they UM only have
Speaker 1: sixty percent control, which is a pretty sangular analysis of
Speaker 1: what they control. UM, it's probably much smaller than that.
Speaker 1: But you know, them demonstrating that they do not have
Speaker 1: UM control over forty of the country as a pretty
Speaker 1: staggering proposition and kind of indication to their allies that UM,
Speaker 1: you know, they just don't have the capacity to administer
Speaker 1: a country that's unwilling to be pacified and um so
Speaker 1: and and you know, on top of that, there's very
Speaker 1: little I just don't see a pathway in which they
Speaker 1: will capture more territory. Um. I mean they have, you know,
Speaker 1: constrained resources. Um they have. I think they had twenty
Speaker 1: two entrants into the Defense Service Academy last year. I
Speaker 1: mean there's when they when there's casualties on the front lines,
Speaker 1: you just there's not a lot of replacement happening. Um,
Speaker 1: They're not able to get spare parts for their Russian
Speaker 1: made helicopters. You know, there's just major material constraints that
Speaker 1: the S a c. S. Military is facing, and it's
Speaker 1: just hard to imagine that they will ever regain much
Speaker 1: more than you know, what they say is territorial control. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's very if. Then if we look at the
Speaker 1: PDF by comparison, and I got banned from Twitter last
Speaker 1: week for posting a picture of them, but their equipment
Speaker 1: compared to even a year ago, is vastly improved. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you saw the one group of guys
Speaker 1: with it actually international rifle, but I have no idea
Speaker 1: where that came from, but it it's very impressive that
Speaker 1: they have one. Yeah, yeah, it's kind of um Honestly,
Speaker 1: the resilience of this movement is partly a testament to
Speaker 1: the ingenuity and innovation UM. I mean, we saw it
Speaker 1: in the beginning in the non violent action, demonstrating or
Speaker 1: kind of deploying tactics that we've never seen before that
Speaker 1: have you know, been lessons to other international non violent
Speaker 1: movements around the world. Just really creative fundraising tactics, as
Speaker 1: you and I have discussed in the past. But yeah,
Speaker 1: now it's the military ingenuity. I mean, essentially creating UM
Speaker 1: facilities for retrofitting drones for aerial attacks. UM. One of
Speaker 1: the military's helicopters was taken down this morning. I haven't
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly what weapons were used in that,
Speaker 1: but you know, it's just kind of a level of
Speaker 1: innovation given uh, these you know, the PDFs and most
Speaker 1: of the eras have have very little access to very
Speaker 1: few kind of international um, you know, arms markets. So
Speaker 1: the fact that they're able to sustain themselves at all
Speaker 1: and maintain this, you know, which is probably much more
Speaker 1: of the territory is is kind of an incredible testament
Speaker 1: to their innovation and ingenuity. Yeah, it's like there's a
Speaker 1: couple obviously of several PDF fighters who I keep in
Speaker 1: touch with, and like they they have spoken to me
Speaker 1: about like first or three D printed guns, which we've
Speaker 1: spoken about extentively, but also torna CA's night vision goggles,
Speaker 1: even process like like limbs people who have lost legs,
Speaker 1: right to land minds and things. So like, it's amazing
Speaker 1: that they've set up all these things which normally require
Speaker 1: like a massive interaction with the state and with an
Speaker 1: international system, and they've done it using in this case,
Speaker 1: the Internet and a three hundred dollar printer. They've got
Speaker 1: an early Express or something. Yeah, it's incredible. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's extremely sort of inspiration on that sense, but also
Speaker 1: very sad. Like I want to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the the s a C seems to have. It's
Speaker 1: not fair to say they've pivoted to war crimes, because
Speaker 1: it's been kind of integral to what they've done from
Speaker 1: the outset, but they seem to have given up on
Speaker 1: trying to make like targeted strikes against the military formations
Speaker 1: and just pivoted to dropping bombs on civilians. Could you
Speaker 1: talk about a couple of those, like maybe we could
Speaker 1: talk about the Kitchen Music cultural festival they bombed, or
Speaker 1: well one of the other examples of that. Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: definitely been a shift from UM a strategy of essentially
Speaker 1: augmenting UM or providing air support to UH kind of
Speaker 1: exposed frontline light infantry, to a tactic of targeted air
Speaker 1: strikes against civilian targets and against UM or organization headquarters
Speaker 1: which had UM under previous UM negotiation has been deemed
Speaker 1: like off limits, but UM it seems as if there's
Speaker 1: nothing off limits now. They bombed UM the Chin National
Speaker 1: Front's headquarters which is right on the India Chin border
Speaker 1: UM on the western part of the mr UM and
Speaker 1: there's pretty reliable accounts that there were UM there were
Speaker 1: bombs that landed in Indian territory. UM. I mean, as
Speaker 1: you reference, they there was a bombing in um, a
Speaker 1: Chin state on a on a festival, killing at least
Speaker 1: sixty civilians. They've done something similar on UM UH ethnic
Speaker 1: Armed Organization headquarters in the southeastern Karan territories, including the
Speaker 1: our acount of armies facilities in those areas. So there
Speaker 1: has been a shift in tactic to UM targeting headquarters
Speaker 1: facilities in that sense and as you said, kind of
Speaker 1: civilian targets to I don't know, you know, this is
Speaker 1: just the modus operandi of an institution that is devoid
Speaker 1: of humanity and um, so alienated from society that they
Speaker 1: you know, they're they're willing to go to any ends
Speaker 1: to kind of protect themselves and their control of power.
Speaker 1: I think, particularly now that they've seen that the public
Speaker 1: is against them, and um probably quite concerned that if
Speaker 1: they are unsuccessful in this military endeavor that they will
Speaker 1: be kind of strung up, you know. So it's um yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's kind of a sign of desperation and
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, kind of a tactical shifty. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should explain the sort of four cut strategy, which has
Speaker 1: been a long term strategy even before the coupe of
Speaker 1: the military, and what that means and how that sort
Speaker 1: of provide I guess I didn't like a moral framework,
Speaker 1: maybe a certain weight that you know that it's it's
Speaker 1: not like they started doing this ship in February one,
Speaker 1: right like that, this is what this is how they
Speaker 1: do stuff. I mean, this is an institution that's been
Speaker 1: at war with its own people for seventy years. Um yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, the there is an underlying philosophy of them,
Speaker 1: our military that that that they essentially are the protectors
Speaker 1: of national sovereignty and to a certain degree of protectors
Speaker 1: of the Bamar ethnic group and Bomar Buddhism in particular.
Speaker 1: And UM, this is a deeply in trance philosophy within
Speaker 1: the UM military establishment, and UM it's been to a
Speaker 1: certain degree a fairly compelling narrative for retention and institutional solidarity,
Speaker 1: which is why in some part, I mean, it's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons there are a number why this the
Speaker 1: s A C. And the sit that memory military is
Speaker 1: has been resilient to UM collapse despite you know, being
Speaker 1: extremely incompetent and UM very isolated UM and virtually never
Speaker 1: having one a war, despite being at war for seventy
Speaker 1: years and having structural and military manages UM. And so
Speaker 1: this is kind of underlying the justification and the moral
Speaker 1: philosophy of this institution that is morally UM corrupted. But
Speaker 1: as you said, their UM tactical strategy is essentially one
Speaker 1: of social isolation, division UM and ensuring as much human
Speaker 1: suffering as possible so as to UM pacify a population
Speaker 1: into submission. And so essentially the strategy is to kind
Speaker 1: of cut communications and food supply and um uh connections
Speaker 1: between communities and these sorts of things, which is um
Speaker 1: we're For a very long time, the military strategy has
Speaker 1: been one of divide and conquer, in which they've um
Speaker 1: attempted to exacerbate divisions between ethnic and religious minority communities
Speaker 1: to ensure that they would not face a united front.
Speaker 1: And so the incredible challenge and opportunity of the current
Speaker 1: resistance movement is one in which the MIAM or military
Speaker 1: is no longer at the table in conversations with one another,
Speaker 1: um and they are trying to build cohesion with one another.
Speaker 1: And frankly, this is where there's unbelievable progress that I
Speaker 1: don't think gets enough attention and appreciation that there's meaningful
Speaker 1: changes in behavior in terms of the Bomar majority ethnic communities,
Speaker 1: posture towards ethnic and religious minorities, and you know, communication
Speaker 1: and coordination across UM institutions that had historically been at
Speaker 1: odds and happy to go more into that, but yeah,
Speaker 1: the strategy of dividing conqueror is really front and center. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and ironically, by pushing that so high that they've they've
Speaker 1: done the complete opposite, which is forced people to form
Speaker 1: like a popular front against him. Yeah, let's talk about that,
Speaker 1: because I find it really fascinating, how like even how
Speaker 1: like E A O s and PDFs are kind of
Speaker 1: vaguely underneath a unified command at this point. And again,
Speaker 1: let's talk about how those barriers which you doceted for
Speaker 1: so long a sort of gradually breaking down now, yeah, rapidly.
Speaker 1: I guess one of the ways in which there's been
Speaker 1: a meaningful shift has been just kind of the individual
Speaker 1: experiences of the military's atrocities. I mean, um, I think
Speaker 1: in your previous episode with Conchomo, he had indicated that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, public perception of Rohena has shifted somewhat, although
Speaker 1: it's kind of questionable whether it's a durable shift and
Speaker 1: whether it's meaningful and all that. But um, he had
Speaker 1: attributed that shift in part to the fact that the
Speaker 1: Bomar majority Buddhist population is now experiencing frankly, some of
Speaker 1: the forms of atrocity that the Rohenja had experienced, you know,
Speaker 1: in the seventies and the nineties and then in seventeen
Speaker 1: um when things escalated to genocide. So I think this
Speaker 1: is One of the shifts is that the in the
Speaker 1: Burmese heartland, in the area where the military recruits most
Speaker 1: of its soldiers, UM, they are undertaking the most arguably
Speaker 1: the most um extreme atrocities, burning villages to the ground, um,
Speaker 1: you know, just horrendous stuff that like I don't even
Speaker 1: want to say on the air, but just um, you know,
Speaker 1: just an incredible campaign of terror. Um. In part because
Speaker 1: the people's defense forces and the resistance forces are are
Speaker 1: extremely strong there and only strengthening in response to these atrocities.
Speaker 1: So I think that's one of the dynamics is that
Speaker 1: there's um, there's been a shift in perception because of um,
Speaker 1: because of the Hunter's behavior. Another is that, frankly, there's
Speaker 1: just a man of political shift at play. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have you know, February one, the National League, like
Speaker 1: Nationally for Democracy led government is deposed and they don't
Speaker 1: necessarily have arms or an experience of military combat, whereas
Speaker 1: the ethnic armed organizations have been fighting for seventy years
Speaker 1: against the central government, including the National League for Democracy
Speaker 1: led government. And so there is a shift in power
Speaker 1: at that moment um that you know, shift power from
Speaker 1: the Bamar center to ethnic minority communities in a in
Speaker 1: a particular way. So UM, that kind of open space
Speaker 1: for greater humility and greater dialogue and UM, you know,
Speaker 1: willingness to make concessions to ethnic and religious inn arty communities. UM,
Speaker 1: and that isn't there's actually been tremendous progress there. So
Speaker 1: there's the National Unity Consultative Council, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: probably the most important dialogue platform, but one one that
Speaker 1: is very focused on big picture governance challenges UM and
Speaker 1: long term kind of national dialogue processes. But UM, there's
Speaker 1: been some good progress there. But frankly, the most progress
Speaker 1: has been made in UM military and governance coordination platforms.
Speaker 1: So this includes the C three C, which is essentially
Speaker 1: a commanded control platform that's between the National Unity government
Speaker 1: and ethnic armed organization leadership where they're coordinating military strategy
Speaker 1: and tactics. So that and there's been considerable trust building
Speaker 1: through those sorts of operations. And similarly, there's been trust
Speaker 1: building in you know, basic things like coordinating humanitarian assistance
Speaker 1: or UM local administration or policing these sorts of things.
Speaker 1: UM where there's um, you know, there's a problem that's
Speaker 1: needed to be solved in the near term and we
Speaker 1: can come together to solve it collaboratively and in that
Speaker 1: process sort of build understanding and trust with one another.
Speaker 1: So UM, there's been really meaningful differences I've seen in
Speaker 1: terms of cohesion across traditional lines of intercommunal division. UM.
Speaker 1: Obviously a long way to go, but this is a
Speaker 1: lot of what what we're working on at the US
Speaker 1: and Student Peace and UM that the U. S. Government
Speaker 1: is supporting is trying to support the resistance capacity to
Speaker 1: chart a viable pathway to stabilization, and a lot of
Speaker 1: that relies upon building cohesion and trust among resistance groups. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Everyone I spoke to Neibly, not everyone I spoke to
Speaker 1: is Mama, some people with Karen UM and some of
Speaker 1: them were some of the people we've spoken to, like
Speaker 1: remotely or Ranger. UM. All of them said that what
Speaker 1: has to come out of this is like a federalized democracy.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that's that's likely? And what does
Speaker 1: that look like in the country it's spent war with
Speaker 1: itself for most of the last century. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: clearly this is a question that needs to be answered
Speaker 1: by them people. UM. And I think the National Unity
Speaker 1: Consultative Council is a good platform for having this discussion.
Speaker 1: But there is a number of free requisits for for
Speaker 1: having that discussion is and one of them is kind
Speaker 1: of new norms of dialogue based on trust and mutual
Speaker 1: um respect. But yeah, I think that um, the only
Speaker 1: viable pathway to stability is you know, is one that
Speaker 1: results in a federal democratic system in which subnational federal
Speaker 1: units have a degree of autonomy, UM, and in which
Speaker 1: there is a baseline of equality. UM, there's rule of law,
Speaker 1: independent judiciary, UM. You know, just the basic fundamentals that
Speaker 1: ensure protections of minority populations. UM. You know. Another challenge
Speaker 1: being that even you know, within states like Kachin State,
Speaker 1: where you know, the Kachin at the community is an
Speaker 1: ethnic minority at the national level, but there are also
Speaker 1: subminaries that you know, like the Shawnee population, and and
Speaker 1: there's concerns that you know, there may um, there needs
Speaker 1: to be protections for the minorities within the minority state.
Speaker 1: So you know, all of these things need to be
Speaker 1: sort of worked out. And this is of course, like
Speaker 1: a maybe a decade long national dialogue process that will
Speaker 1: ultimately culminate in a new federal governance structure, a new
Speaker 1: security structure that you know, maybe doesn't have a federal
Speaker 1: you know, a union level military with the level of
Speaker 1: autonomy or political involvement that you know has played this
Speaker 1: country for so long. But this is really like the
Speaker 1: key to long term peace and stability in the country.
Speaker 1: And frankly, like it felt a long way off under
Speaker 1: the NLD administration. I mean, they were making a lot
Speaker 1: of progress in a lot of ways, but you know,
Speaker 1: building a just and inequitable governance structure in which ethnic
Speaker 1: and religious minorities had a voice and didn't feel oppressed
Speaker 1: by the dominant Bmar Budhist population um Avranfully it was,
Speaker 1: it was quite all ways off. And this, you know,
Speaker 1: as horrible as the cure has been, it is definitely
Speaker 1: a shock to the system that may open up new
Speaker 1: pathways for dialogue, um, new opportunities for trust building, and
Speaker 1: you know, the opportunity to you know, think about a
Speaker 1: new model of governance that is you know, more just
Speaker 1: more equitable and more inclusive. Yeah, it's definitely brought in
Speaker 1: a whole generation of younger people who like aren't sort
Speaker 1: of who didn't come through the institutions that created the
Speaker 1: old regime and just came at this it's like I'm
Speaker 1: seventeen and I'm bucking angry and like I'm going to
Speaker 1: make this better sort of however I can. And yeah,
Speaker 1: they're they're really, I mean obviously very inspirational and then
Speaker 1: fascinated to talk to. I wonder, like, how do you
Speaker 1: see the end to this conflict? Because we're still a
Speaker 1: long way from either side having an definitive military victory. Right, Certainly,
Speaker 1: all these big cities are still more or less controlled
Speaker 1: by the Hunter and that's there's not an immediate way
Speaker 1: that I can foresee them not being that way. So
Speaker 1: if I could ask you to like speculate a little
Speaker 1: bit or look at the way things are going, how
Speaker 1: do we get out of the situation where the Hunters
Speaker 1: bombing schools and music concerts and right, um m hmm,
Speaker 1: it's yeah. This is honestly, like I think everyone is
Speaker 1: kind of lost, um in our attempts to make predictions
Speaker 1: of where this is going. Um, Honestly, I don't know
Speaker 1: that there is a path to a military victory for
Speaker 1: either side here. Um, I mean, it seems pretty unlikely
Speaker 1: that you'll SEEPDS marching on nepied on capturing the Ministry
Speaker 1: of Defense, anytime soon, UM. But equally unlikely that the
Speaker 1: s a C will consolidate, you know, control of the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just that's just not going to happen. UM.
Speaker 1: So I mean the the a lot of our work
Speaker 1: is thinking through the best possible outcomes and increasing the
Speaker 1: probably trying doing the work to try to increase the
Speaker 1: probability of those outcomes. And I think the UM this
Speaker 1: is where it's just like I have questions for a
Speaker 1: lot of the international actors that are supporting the s
Speaker 1: a C, because I I just don't know of any
Speaker 1: possible pathway to peace and stabilization that goes through a
Speaker 1: stronger s a C. It just seems unfathomable. UM. But
Speaker 1: you know, there are pathways to stabilization that go through
Speaker 1: a stronger resistance movement that either yields some radical transformation
Speaker 1: of the SACS composition and then some sort of dialogue
Speaker 1: process UM, or you know, just a very very extended
Speaker 1: UM conflict in which you know, the resistance holds territory
Speaker 1: UM in some parts of the country, the SAC controls
Speaker 1: some other areas UM over an extended period. The ethnic
Speaker 1: arm to organizations contain kind of UM act more and
Speaker 1: more autonomously, and you have areas in you know, Kachin
Speaker 1: and Wa Ho Kong and the Chinese border, re Kind
Speaker 1: State that's kind of gained a bit more autonomy and
Speaker 1: sort of act more independently of one another. So like
Speaker 1: this sort of fragmentation process. And honestly, if if there
Speaker 1: is an election, you know, a sham election by the
Speaker 1: s a C, it seems to increase the probability of
Speaker 1: this fragmentation scenario. Um. You know, it increases the probability
Speaker 1: that the SAC just maintains its presence in the in
Speaker 1: the urban areas, and then Rekind State, Kachin State, Waw State,
Speaker 1: these kind of become more autonomous regions, Chin State, um,
Speaker 1: and they start to operate as semi independent states. So honestly,
Speaker 1: that's that's part of why I feel like support to
Speaker 1: the s a C. Not only is it the SAC
Speaker 1: for the elections, I should say, not only does it
Speaker 1: almost definitely increased violence because you know, the elections are
Speaker 1: a target, but also it increases the probability of national
Speaker 1: fragmentation UM. And it doesn't do anything to increase the
Speaker 1: probability of stability. So I just don't I don't really
Speaker 1: see that that being a pathway to any form of
Speaker 1: stability or ending the SACS bombings of schools. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it gives them this way talking point bit at
Speaker 1: the Russian sham elections in the Dom Bass, like like
Speaker 1: because we saw like I think it was a mobi
Speaker 1: a PDFU. I don't know if you saw this, but
Speaker 1: they did a drive by and shot some people who
Speaker 1: were polling for it out doing some kind of election stuff,
Speaker 1: and obviously that gives them this kind of Oh, look,
Speaker 1: our election workers are being attacked with terrible people. The
Speaker 1: PDFs are kind of but you know, if you've spent
Speaker 1: more than ten minutes your entire life reading about Memma,
Speaker 1: then you realize that that's the false claim. The international
Speaker 1: community just doesn't seem to care to a large degree
Speaker 1: about the trustees in Miama, about the revolution in Miama,
Speaker 1: about the core and MIMA certainly doesn't care in the
Speaker 1: same way that it cares about what's happening in Ukraine. Right,
Speaker 1: it doesn't care with man pads and tanks and guns
Speaker 1: and training and all the things that could bring this
Speaker 1: water an end much more quickly. Do you think that
Speaker 1: that will change or it's just going to be Burmese
Speaker 1: people liberating Burmese people because the world doesn't care about them,
Speaker 1: It doesn't care in a material fashion. Yeah. I think
Speaker 1: there's like, yeah, I think there's UM sort of like
Speaker 1: two dynamics, and player one is that, Yeah, people care
Speaker 1: a lot less than Ukraine or Taiwan or other geopolitical interest.
Speaker 1: They see this to a certain level as a domestic
Speaker 1: issue that doesn't have regional locations, something that we're very
Speaker 1: focused on demonstrating is totally untrue. UM. And the other
Speaker 1: thing is that people don't know what to do. And
Speaker 1: like I mean, even UM, the US Congress just past
Speaker 1: the Burma Act, which is a piece of legislation that
Speaker 1: essentially signals congressional interest in Burma and more to be
Speaker 1: done UM, alongside appropriations of resources to support it. UM.
Speaker 1: The challenge now is figuring out what is the best
Speaker 1: use of resources. And I think that UM countries like
Speaker 1: Japan and UM, honestly some U states, you know, Ascan states.
Speaker 1: It's more they are very uncomfortable with the engaging with
Speaker 1: revolutionary actors and there's just not a lot of certainty
Speaker 1: as to how to help because there's like, okay, military
Speaker 1: assistance UM. To the end, EU G It's like there's
Speaker 1: a lot of concern that you know, you know, significant
Speaker 1: expansion of arms access in the country is you know,
Speaker 1: you have this mass proliferation of weapons. You have you know,
Speaker 1: concerns about post conflict warlordism or weapons and resources getting
Speaker 1: into the hands of narco traffickers. UM. You know, there's
Speaker 1: just a lot of uncertainty, and so there's not an
Speaker 1: adequate given what the first point that this is really
Speaker 1: a kind of peripheral regional matter in the eyes of
Speaker 1: some UM, it yields a very low risk tolerance and
Speaker 1: uncertainty as to what to do. And so this kind
Speaker 1: of has resulted in a couple of things, one being
Speaker 1: that the buck is just passed to multilateral institutions like ACON.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think China has done a very effective
Speaker 1: job of ensuring nothing happens in the international realm UM
Speaker 1: by pushing it to Ascion, which it knows is incapable
Speaker 1: of doing anything meaningful UM. And so it's just relegated
Speaker 1: to multilateral platforms where nothing will happen. You always have
Speaker 1: a veto from UM Highland Cambodia or Russia and China
Speaker 1: at the n S, at the Security Council, UM and
Speaker 1: so you know, it's these combinations of factors that really
Speaker 1: challenge this thing. And even within the U. S. Government
Speaker 1: there's like a very robust inter agency debate about exactly
Speaker 1: what is the best form of assistance, what is the
Speaker 1: most ethical way of engaging and UM, what are risks
Speaker 1: associated with different forms of assistance to the resistance movement UM.
Speaker 1: So I think that uncertainty plays a lot into it,
Speaker 1: and so UM a lot of what I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of value that could be added if UM
Speaker 1: the resistance movement can come together essentially around a common
Speaker 1: set of requests from the international community, essentially saying this
Speaker 1: is what we need UM to be effective. And you
Speaker 1: know you, based on your risk tolerance, help us as
Speaker 1: you can. But we're demonstrating to you that we have
Speaker 1: we're unified in these ways, we have these needs, and UM,
Speaker 1: you know, help us however you feel is most appropriate
Speaker 1: given your risk tolerance. So, I don't know, it's incredibly complicated.
Speaker 1: I think them having China, India, Bangladesh, Thailand and Laos
Speaker 1: as your neighbors also makes this just incredibly challenging. You
Speaker 1: can't access the country in the way that you can UM.
Speaker 1: For Ukraine. Um so just logistically it's incredibly challenging. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true. Yeah, it does seem still like like you said,
Speaker 1: like it's like in Ukraine, we also have deeply problematic
Speaker 1: groups who we are, who we are arming, And yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's ironic that their concern is spreading the preventing
Speaker 1: the proliferation in arms, and what they've done has helped
Speaker 1: like a giant leap forward in I don't know, artisanal
Speaker 1: homemade weapons technology, like we're probably only seeing the very
Speaker 1: tip of in like our porting, Like, I'm sure that's
Speaker 1: more stuff that we'll see as time goes on. And
Speaker 1: but I wonder what can people do? People often ask
Speaker 1: like if where they can donate, how they can help, right,
Speaker 1: because obviously it is extremely difficult to see little kids
Speaker 1: getting shot in schools, and I want to do something,
Speaker 1: And I wonder what you would suggest for people who
Speaker 1: are looking to help. We've both spoken to people who
Speaker 1: are collecting money through click to donate, which is one
Speaker 1: thing people can do. But um, do you want to
Speaker 1: explain that, actually explain how people can and can participate
Speaker 1: in click to donate. I think that's cool. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean there's been a number of really fascinating fundraising models. UM. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the click to notitate model is essentially the resistance leveraging
Speaker 1: what it has UM a comparative advantage in which is
Speaker 1: huge numbers of people on their side, and essentially, um,
Speaker 1: the resistance creates creates web pages or YouTube content or anything,
Speaker 1: and you know, just engages the advertisements on those pages,
Speaker 1: which increa us is the value of those that ad space,
Speaker 1: and then they can kind of generate revenue that way. Um.
Speaker 1: The National Unity government has also done some really fascinating
Speaker 1: stuff issuing bonds, uh, conducting a lottery, um, selling off
Speaker 1: you know, s a c military properties. I think they
Speaker 1: just sold the minile on Alnes House and Yangon for
Speaker 1: a considerable amount. Um. So it's kind of a an
Speaker 1: incredible fundraising model and requiring tremendous innovation. They also created
Speaker 1: uh a financial technology called and new g pay and
Speaker 1: a digital current currency d mmk um. So yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's kind of a remarkable um innovation there. Um. In
Speaker 1: terms of what kind of a uh your listeners could do,
Speaker 1: I think, um, you know, I think engaging in uh
Speaker 1: some of the international kind of advocacy and awareness raising
Speaker 1: is is really valuable I think some of these things
Speaker 1: like if you know, if you're a congress person acknowledges
Speaker 1: demand for this, then that can increase that the pressure
Speaker 1: that they put on the State Department, d D, Natural
Speaker 1: Security Council, UM and potentially increase the risk tolemance of
Speaker 1: the US government if if there's just more pressure there.
Speaker 1: So those sorts of things I think, UM, honestly engaging
Speaker 1: with some of the content that's being that's being created
Speaker 1: by the resistance, learning about my mr um, you know,
Speaker 1: just just following the story. I mean, it's like, I
Speaker 1: don't know, you've probably experienced this doing your reporting, but
Speaker 1: it's just like the most unbelievable stories of human resilience
Speaker 1: and just like, I don't know, it's it's such like
Speaker 1: an honor to be near by these people who are
Speaker 1: just risking so much for such a for such an
Speaker 1: honorable cause that they truly believe in. It's just like
Speaker 1: the quintessential example of integrity and um, yeah, goodness, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's amazing. It's stuff you couldn't make up and like
Speaker 1: it's stories you can sell as fiction and almost like yeah,
Speaker 1: their integrity, like even they're like and one thing I
Speaker 1: find absolutely amazing like you said, perspectives on ethnic groups
Speaker 1: have changed on so many things that people they're willingness
Speaker 1: to be like, I've examined my stance on this and
Speaker 1: it was the wrong stance, and I'm changing my stance
Speaker 1: on this. It's like we spoke to so many young
Speaker 1: people who were like, yeah, I was fairly misogynist, like
Speaker 1: a February one, and since then, like I fought alongside women,
Speaker 1: I've you know, I've seen them do things that I didn't.
Speaker 1: I've been told that they weren't capable of, and I've changed.
Speaker 1: I was wrong, and like we need to not be
Speaker 1: a misogynist country going forward. Yeah, no, there was. I
Speaker 1: was maybe you know this group, but I was engaging
Speaker 1: with organization that was it's led by kind of an activist,
Speaker 1: former active um, and he was kind of saying that
Speaker 1: they've essentially tried to eliminate all of the sort of
Speaker 1: misogyny in their in their training protocols, like even just
Speaker 1: using terms like man up or something. It's like wiped
Speaker 1: it from their approach because it's like that's a misogynistic
Speaker 1: kind of you know, approach to thinking about strength and power,
Speaker 1: and so it's like what you're saying is I'm here,
Speaker 1: I'm feeling the same hearing the same things. It's which
Speaker 1: is incredibly powerful given particularly given the pressures and what
Speaker 1: they're all going through, just having the wherewithal to kind
Speaker 1: of like their head ups and think about, you know,
Speaker 1: be reflective of themselves. Like imagine in the American political discourse,
Speaker 1: people actually changing their minds for once. It's remarkable. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: genuine is. And it's refreshing in that sense to see
Speaker 1: people like wanting the right thing and not letting tiny
Speaker 1: differences like blow them into severn thousand different pieces, right,
Speaker 1: the broad date grain on one thing. Yeah, exactly, And
Speaker 1: that's kind of the remarkable. I mean, the nation need
Speaker 1: to consultative Counsel for example. You know, it's had its
Speaker 1: challenges um as a dialogue platform, but it's still going
Speaker 1: and that is like people are still coming to the table.
Speaker 1: And frankly, it's remarkable because repeatedly, in quote unquote peace
Speaker 1: processes in MR history, they've collapsed because you know, someone
Speaker 1: said something and you know another party left the table
Speaker 1: um and didn't return. So the fact that these dialogues
Speaker 1: are continuing on is an incredible testament to people's willingness
Speaker 1: to kind of open up and be more humble and
Speaker 1: kind of consider the other's opinion and question their own,
Speaker 1: which is you know, a lesson we could all learn. Yeah, yeah, definitely, Billy,
Speaker 1: where can people like, where can people find you online?
Speaker 1: And where can they find more get information about my
Speaker 1: m um? I am you know, if you search Billy
Speaker 1: Ford at us I P dot org you can find
Speaker 1: the stuff I've written recently. And then I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: here at b I L L E the number four,
Speaker 1: the letter d UM and good sources of information. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's great UM investigative work by Myanmar Witness UM, which
Speaker 1: is just an incredible group of researchers. UM. There's been
Speaker 1: a couple of good reports recently by Global Witness and
Speaker 1: Earth Rights related to sanctions that just came out. UM
Speaker 1: U S I P. You can check out some of
Speaker 1: our writing. My colleagues Jason Tower in Brasilo Clop just
Speaker 1: published something related to how the conflict has regional consequences
Speaker 1: that could be of interest UM and UM there's I
Speaker 1: don't know, there's innumerable great UM MEAMR think tanks. The
Speaker 1: Chin Human Rights Organization has done some incredible research and
Speaker 1: reporting about military atrocities and Chin State. Um could go
Speaker 1: on and on, but um yeah, if you I don't know,
Speaker 1: check out my Twitter. I've tend to repost stuff that
Speaker 1: I find fascinating and there's there's a lot out there. Yeah. Great, Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for giving us some of your
Speaker 1: time this afternoon. Already appreciate it. It's good to catch up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. James has been great, no worries.
Speaker 1: It could happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: cool zone media dot com, or check us out on
Speaker 1: the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to podcasts. You can find sources for It could
Speaker 1: Happen Here, updated monthly at cool zone Media dot com
Speaker 1: slash sources. Thanks for listening.