A Nation Interrupted

“Change will come. We don’t know when, we don’t know how, but it will come eventually, and I hope that there are enough people around the world with that interest and passion for Myanmar that will help it re-engage with the international community and re-engage with the country so that it can rebuild itself in better times in the future.”

Nicholas Coppel’s experiences and insights regarding his diplomatic service in Myanmar offer a unique perspective on the complex interplay of governance, military influence, and international engagement during pivotal moments in the country’s modern history. Serving as Australia’s ambassador to Myanmar from 2015 to 2018, his tenure coincided with significant events, including the historic 2015 elections, the subsequent transfer of power to the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the evolving challenges posed by Myanmar’s military apparatus.

From the outset, Coppel’s diplomatic role was involved with the political climate surrounding Myanmar’s elections. The 2015 elections marked a very optimistic time for the Burmese people; the NLD secured a landslide victory, raising hopes for democratic reform. However, skepticism had lingered, both within and outside the country. Aung San Suu Kyi herself was reportedly apprehensive about the integrity of the elections beforehand, holding meetings with diplomatic missions to express her concerns. Despite reassurances from international observers about the fairness of the electoral process, her trepidation stemmed from her extensive history of persecution under the military regime, including years of house arrest and a failed assassination attempt. So this historical weight and skepticism made the NLD's electoral success in 2015 all the more momentous: it was the country’s first democratic transfer of power in decades.

The NLD’s rise to power introduced a new era, albeit one tempered by the constraints of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution. That document, crafted by the military, institutionalized a dyadic system of governance that divided authority between civilian and military entities. The military retained significant control, appointing 25% of parliamentary seats and key ministers overseeing defense, home affairs, and border affairs. This ensured that all the “coercive instruments of the State” as he calls them— the police, the military and the prison system—remained under military control, creating an enduring power imbalance. Coppel’s engagement with the Myanmar government was very much skewed toward the civilian side, with limited access to military officials. In his four years as ambassador, he managed only a handful of meetings with the Commander-in-Chief and regional commanders, underscoring the insular nature of the military establishment.

Australia’s diplomatic objectives in Myanmar during that period prioritized support for the country’s peaceful transition and regional stability. Unlike other nations with strategic or economic stakes in the country’s future, Australia’s interests were relatively modest, centered on development assistance, irregular migration, and combating the narcotics trade. Development programs sought to bolster Myanmar’s reform agenda, while cooperation with the Myanmar police focused on disrupting drug trafficking routes. However, the effectiveness of this latter effort was undermined by the military’s own entanglement in the narcotics trade, either through tacit endorsement or direct involvement.

Returning to the thorny issue of the military’s role in the government, one of the unique challenges of diplomacy in Myanmar was that the civilian government and military often operated on parallel tracks, and occasionally at odds. The military showed extreme reluctance to cede any authority even as the civilian government sought to assert its electoral mandate. Here he references Aung San Suu Kyi’s creation of the State Counsellor role, a workaround to the provision inserted by the military into the 2008 Constitution that barred her from the presidency. While the creation of this position exemplified the resourcefulness required to navigate military-imposed institutional constraints, Coppel felt that such maneuvers also deepened military suspicions that their power was going to be significantly diminished. These tensions were particularly heightened when the NLD pursued constitutional amendments to reduce the military’s role in governance, eventually culminating in the military’s 2021 coup.

Coppel talks about the international community’s limited influence over Myanmar’s military. He notes that diplomatic engagement has been constrained by the military’s insularity and resistance to external influence. Programs like English language training for mid-level officers were instituted to build bridges, but yielded limited results, as its participants often lacked decision-making power within the military hierarchy. This broader failure to cultivate meaningful relationships left diplomats ill-equipped to even anticipate, let alone attempt to prevent the onset of the coup.

Today, the post-coup landscape in Myanmar has only further complicated international engagement. Many countries, including Australia, have opted to downgrade their diplomatic presence, replacing ambassadors with chargés d’affaires to avoid any sign of legitimizing the military regime. But to Coppel, this type of symbolic gesture only underscores the broader dilemma of trying to balance opposition to the regime with the need to support Myanmar’s civilian population. Moreover, he articulates what he sees as some unintended consequences of disengagement, citing examples where well-meaning actions exacerbated hardships for ordinary citizens. For instance, following the departure of the Norwegian telecom company, Telenor, under pressure from activists, a much worse company filled the vacuum, and wasted no time in supporting the military’s surveillance efforts. 

Advocating for a more nuanced approach that prioritizes constructive engagement over punitive measures, Coppel also highlights the importance of supporting grassroots initiatives, such as telehealth services, distance education, and exile media organizations. He also emphasizes the importance of targeted interventions that limit revenue to the military without harming the population, citing the garment industry as an example. Copple notes that while contracts with foreign retailers provide livelihoods for thousands of workers, the military’s share of profits from this sector is minimal—especially when compared to revenues from the energy industry.

The role of technology in shaping Myanmar’s crisis has been another area of focus for Coppel. The proliferation of mobile phones and internet access since 2011 has transformed the country, which then enabled repression ... and resistance. Social media platforms have facilitated fundraising, information dissemination, and coordination among resistance groups like never before. At the same time, the military has weaponized digital tools for surveillance and propaganda, cutting off internet access to suppress dissent and conceal human rights abuses. Coppel co-authored a book exploring what he refers to as a “digital coup,” emphasizing how technology has amplified both the challenges and opportunities of Myanmar’s struggle for democracy.

Looking ahead, Coppel remains cautiously optimistic about Myanmar’s future. Change, he argues, ultimately needs to come from within Myanmar, where it will be driven by the resilience of its people. However, he stresses that the international community also has a critical role to play in providing resources, amplifying voices, and maintaining pressure on the military regime.

“I would encourage your listeners to remain engaged with Myanmar," he says in closing. "I would hate to think that the country and our attention on it, and our interest in it is diminished because of the actions of a military general. There are many people in the country living their lives, and I think that it’s important not to forget them.”

If you would like to listen to past episodes from our archive that touch upon similar themes, we suggest the following:

·  Charles Petrie shares how his extensive experience with the United Nations and as a facilitator in Myanmar highlights the evolving dynamics of governance and international engagement in conflict zones. He offers a perspective shaped by a career dealing with systemic failures to address atrocities, and emphasizes the critical need for nuanced understanding and accountability within structures meant to safeguard humanity​.

·  Scot Marciel tells of his tenure as the U.S. ambassador to Myanmar, focusing on the challenges of supporting a democratic transition in a nation marked by ethnic divides and military dominance. He highlights the importance of building a cohesive national identity as a foundation for sustainable political change, illustrating the struggle to create inclusive governance structures​.

·  Jiri Sitler recounts the Czech Republic’s solidarity with Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement, rooted in shared histories of overcoming authoritarian regimes. He stresses the enduring value of international moral and material support, highlighting the power of symbolic gestures and global advocacy in sustaining resistance against oppressive systems​.

·  Igor Blažević shares insights from his experiences during the Bosnian conflict, drawing parallels to the current plight of Myanmar’s citizens as they resist tyranny. His reflections on the resilience of human spirit and the necessity of collective small acts of goodness resonate deeply with the struggles faced by communities enduring systemic violence and upheaval​.

·  Isabel Todd discusses her work in international human rights law, emphasizing the ongoing need for global mechanisms to ensure justice for Myanmar’s victims of military atrocities. She highlights the interplay between international accountability and local judicial systems, emphasizing the importance of sustained international pressure to help break cycles of impunity​.