Transcript: Episode #105: The Hope of R2P

Following is the full transcript for the interview with Liam Scott, which appeared on May 26, 2022. This transcript was made possible by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and has not been checked by any human reader. Because of this, many of the words may not be accurate in this text. This is particularly true of speakers who have a stronger accent, as AI will make more mistakes interpreting and transcribing their words. For that reason, this transcript should not be cited in any article or document without checking the timestamp to confirm the exact words that the guest has really said.

---

Host  00:48

Hi there, and thanks for listening. If you're enjoying our podcast and have a recommendation about someone you think we should have on to share their voice and journey with the world. By all means, let us know it could be an aid worker, monastic author, journalist, scholar resistance leader, really anyone with some Thai or another to the ongoing situation in Myanmar, Darfur up a name, go to our website, insight myanmar.org And let us know. But for now, just sit back and take a listen to today's episode.

01:36

You have a Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, ha, ha, ha, a good day.

Host  02:17

I'm here with Liam Scott Scott, who is a research associate at the Global Center for the responsibility to protect. And we're going to be speaking about a term that many people in and around Myanmar have been talking about quite some time. RTP. So Liam Scott, thanks so much for joining us and breaking down this topic for us.

Liam Scott  02:37

Yeah, thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to talk about RTP and Myanmar with you today.

Host  02:43

Yeah, so let's start right ahead with the basics. Can you just define for the listeners? What is RTP? Yeah, so

Liam Scott  02:51

you know, RTP, or the Responsibility to Protect is an international norm that the UN un unanimously adopted in 2005. And it really seeks to, you know, protect populations around the world from atrocity crimes, which are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. So it's, you know, really a cornerstone of atrocity prevention as this really important, you know, global principle, you know, international norm and preventing atrocities and, you know, preventing people from from atrocity crimes.

Host  03:34

Right, thanks for that. And can you tell us the history and context of how the concepts around RTP were developed?

Liam Scott  03:42

Yeah, so, you know, RTP really was, you know, kind of, I kind of view it as being established almost by necessity, you know, kind of in the wake of international failures in responding to atrocities, namely, in Rwanda, with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, as well as atrocity crimes in former Yugoslavia. And, you know, our GP was, is still, you know, an effort to combat and, you know, that historic, or that pattern of international indifference and international inaction to to atrocity crimes, and that it really sought to bring an end to that indifference and inaction that really had characterized the international community's response to to atrocity crimes for for quite some time. So there are three main pillars of the responsibility to to protect and the first pillar is really interesting because it's, it's inward facing. It's it's internal. It's looking domestically, at how countries how governments and protect their own populations from, from atrocity crime. So it really says that, you know, every state every country has has a responsibility to protect its populations from from these four atrocity crimes. And, you know, that's really important because it speaks to this responsibility that all countries have to build, you know, a really a national resilience to, to atrocity crimes through a number of different mechanisms, a number of different strategies to, to protect their own populations from atrocity crimes. And I think when we, when we talk about R to P, we often forget about, you know, that first pillar, it's often talked about in terms of, you know, foreign affairs, or, or how, you know, one country is responding to atrocity crimes in, or arrests of atrocity crimes in, in another country. But, you know, our GDP really starts at home, it starts with building up a country's own ability and capacity to to prevent atrocities and to respond to atrocities. But then you get to pillar two, and that speaks to how, you know, the international community in general has has a responsibility to, to, to encourage and to work with other countries to help them protect their, their, their populations, from atrocity crimes from us for atrocity crimes. And then the third pillar is that, you know, if a state is failing to uphold the Responsibility to Protect, whether it's because of a lack of capacity to protect their people from atrocity crimes, or it is because, you know, that country is a perpetrator itself of atrocity crimes, or if they're, you know, just unwilling to uphold that, that responsibility to protect, then then the international community has a responsibility to, to work to, to protect those people from from mass atrocities. And there are, you know, at every level there are there are different, you know, things in, you know, we call the RTP toolbox to, like I said, with, with pillar one, with building up, you know, a country's national resilience to preventing atrocities, you know, internally, all the way through, you know, pillars two and three different strategies for, for preventing atrocities and for combating ongoing atrocities in that regard.

Host  07:33

So you're working at the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, can you tell us a bit about the mission of this organization?

Liam Scott  07:42

Yeah, so the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect was founded in 2008. So that is, you know, that three years after the the principle was, you know, adopted by the UN. And, you know, our core mission really is to make sure is to really, you know, institutionalize the Responsibility to Protect and make, you know, make the responsibility to protect a reality in the international system. And we do that through monitoring ongoing atrocities or ongoing situations where there is a risk of atrocities. We conduct research on those countries we work to work, we engage in advocacy at primarily at the UN level, both in in New York at the Security Council, as well as in in Geneva, at the Human Rights Council, to really encourage states to to, you uphold the Responsibility to Protect in how they respond to different situations around the world. So we recommend strategies to them, we encourage them to do certain, you know, to do certain things in their response to different atrocities or or to respond to them in the first place. Working with other and also helping them build their, like I said, going back to pillar one helping countries and build their their national capacity than national resilience to atrocity crimes.

Host  09:16

Right. And in your organization's mission statement, it's written quote, We also intend to commit ourselves as necessary and appropriate to helping states build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and to assisting those which are under stress before crisis and conflict breaks out in quote, similar to what you laid out just now. And these are really powerful words and now focusing a bit more specifically on Myanmar. Can you explain how in what ways you're proceeding with that mission statement? On the ground to Myanmar, specifically following the cool

Liam Scott  09:58

yeah, that's a really important question. I think, if possible, I'd like to give just a little bit more, I guess I think about context about, you know, following the coup, what we saw was, you know, obviously, the, there was an unprecedented, you know, unprecedented protests all around all around the country. And what we saw there was also an unprecedented, you know, level of, of people really evoking the Responsibility to Protect, as they protested, whether that was on on T shirts, whether that was on signs, whether that was writing it on, on roads, and things like that, really this unprecedented level of calling for the international community to uphold their responsibility to protect, because clearly, the military was not doing that. And they were calling for, you know, the protection that they they deserved under this under this international principle. And I think that, you know, I think that really demonstrates an important evolution and the Responsibility to Protect since since it was founded in 2005, you know, it hasn't even then it's almost 20 years old, this, this principle, and over the past, you know, since 2005, it's really, you know, opened up, we've read about this a lot in a lot of a lot of our publications, but it's opened up from, you know, something that has been primarily used by, by policymakers at the UN or governments, but really, you know, something that was exclusive to the elite. And it has been, I think, it's opened up to something that civil society, and even the individual can, can really evoke and employ, and I think that that, you know, right after breaks, you know, following the coup is really really epitomized that with all of these protesters evoking and calling for our to pee. So I just wanted to, I think, I think that's really important context just to kind of as, as we think about RTP, and in Myanmar, that, you know, me and most people were have been calling for, you know, since the coup. And I think that's, that's really important. But in terms of main things that you know, what falls under our two p when it comes to me and Mark want the international response to me and my to look for to look like me, there are a bunch of things that we that we've been calling for, that we've been advocating for. But, you know, first and foremost, the international community really has failed to uphold their their responsibility to to protect the people of Myanmar following following the coup in on on February 1 2021. And that, that especially falls I think, on the the Security Council, the the UN Security Council, I think about you know, what the what Myanmar's military what the tatmadaw most wants, and you know, what is what they want, and also what is allowing them to continue perpetrating atrocities across the country. And, you know, I'm not the first person to, you know, name these the three things that they must want, but it's, you know, its money, its weapons, its arms, and its legitimacy, you know, those are the three main things that they want. And it's those things that access to those that allows them to to continue perpetrating atrocities against against their own people responding to the coup, under our two P should really be addressing those those three things, and you see it in a few different ways. So what should have happened, the Security Council should have imposed an arms embargo for one thing, to to limit the flow of weapons into Myanmar, because to really limit the military's ability to to perpetrate atrocities against against their own people. The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar just put out a report actually on on weapons transfers and in the flow of weapons into Myanmar, since 2018, and also since the coup, and he identifies four countries as having sold weapons to to Myanmar since the coup and that's that's China, Russia, Serbia, and in India, as the four countries that have sold weapons to Myanmar since the coup. And, you know, obviously it goes without saying Russia and China are both UN Security Council members of the P five with a veto. So they would be able to, you know, if a resolution came up about, you know, an arms embargo, they could very well and it's likely that they would, you know, veto that But, you know, still talking about an arms embargo, and then I'll move on to something else in a minute, you know, the the United Kingdom on the Security Council is, you know, what's called the penholder. So they are the country that would table a resolution on Myanmar. And they haven't done that yet. You know, they haven't, you know, tried to, you know, go to a vote on a resolution about about Myanmar. And I think, yeah, it's definitely likely, it's almost certain that that, you know, China and or Russia would veto a resolution on an arms embargo or anything else of that nature. But I think it's still really important for other, you know, like minded members of the Security Council to, to try I mean, there's, you know, really, I don't think there's any harm in trying to do what they can, with, you know, the tools that they have available, you know, despite the deadlock, despite the gridlock, that that, you know, is really plaguing the Security Council on Myanmar, and on a host of other issues related to atrocities and related to other things. You know, Tabeling, this resolution, even if it did fail, would send a signal to the people of me and my international community hasn't forgotten about them. And it would also clarify where everyone stands, because so far the Security Council has only met, they've only met privately on a Myanmar, which means, you know, we don't really know. I mean, we can guess we can kind of assume. And it is pretty clear where each country stands on Myanmar. But if you know, there was a vote on a resolution that would really clarify, you know, where each country falls when it comes to to Myanmar, and it would force and then it would, if it's clear that, you know, nothing's going to happen at the Security Council, then what if something were vetoed? Then it would provide more of an impetus, I think, for action, on more of a bilateral capacity outside the Security Council, if it becomes clear that, you know, the Security Council won't be able to do anything substantial. Anything with teeth? Yeah.

Host  17:15

So why do you think that is that the UK has not taken a stand to be able to hold countries accountable, and everything has been done in such privacy and lack of transparency a year into this?

Liam Scott  17:29

You know, I think, I think a couple of things. And, you know, one, I think I want to preface this by saying, you know, the United Kingdom is one of the biggest supporters of such, you know, such a champion of human rights, a champion of the responsibility to protect. And that goes for, you know, a lot of countries but you know, specifically I'm not trying to, you know, disparage what, you know, the United Kingdom, because they do a lot, you know, especially compared to other countries when it comes to human rights, and when it comes to atrocity prevention, but you know, at the same time, I think when, specifically on this, I think part of it comes down to not wanting to risk a veto, because that could reflect poorly on on the United Kingdom or another other countries, I still think that it's worth it. Obviously. There's also, you know, some other things that I've heard other concerns is that, you know, if it if there were a veto, then that could be interpreted by by Myanmar's military as, you know, tacit support for the military. So there are a lot of factors going, you know, going into it. And this is just theorizing, of course, you know, I can't, those are, you know, the likely reasons that the United Kingdom has has been wary of, you know, tabling a resolution, such as, you know, on this at the at the Security Council. But I still think I still think it's, it's worth risking the veto to both send a message to me and my people that the international community that the UN hasn't forgotten about them, and also to really clarify where where everyone has where everyone is on on the subject Myanmar at the Security Council.

Host  19:28

What are your thoughts on the relationship between RTP and the formation of these PDFs across the country?

Liam Scott  19:35

RTP is a political commitment. It's a political norm. It isn't a you know, it isn't a legal obligation. So if a country does not uphold the Responsibility to Protect either domestically or internationally, there aren't any consequences for that because it's not they aren't legally bound. To, to uphold it. So it really falls on them and political will, it falls on their capacity to, to uphold the the responsibility to protect. And I think that speaks back to when I was talking, you know a little bit ago about how, following the coup, there was this unprecedented, you know, call among protesters in Myanmar, for the international community to uphold the Responsibility to Protect, and how that shows that RTP has really opened up to something that even the individual can, can call for, and can work toward. And I think perhaps the the formation of a PDFs could be another example of could perhaps be another example of that.

Host  20:49

Right, it's right, thanks for that. In the on your website, you issued a list of action points that you'd like to see implemented. To resolve the ongoing crisis in Myanmar. This includes everything from the global arms embargo from the UN Security Council to the tomahawk providing unfettered humanitarian access to quote, universal jurisdiction being applied by the global community, I don't think that anyone reasonable would have any issue with any of these suggested actions. However, in Myanmar, there's this growing frustration that this just kind of ends up is more lists more calls for action, more statements. And at the same time, nothing is currently happening while people are continuing to get arrested and killed every day. So for many in the country, and advocates outside, it's really hard to read documents like this, with any real hope anymore, to be honest. So what words would you have for those that are growing increasingly desperate and hopeless by this global failure that we're seeing?

Liam Scott  21:59

I think that's a really good point. And thanks for bringing that up. I mean, I think first, I, of course, share those frustrations with the failure of the international community in general to, to respond effectively and substantially to, to the ongoing crisis in Myanmar. But of course, recognize that at the same time, you know, as I sit here talking to you, from my apartment in Washington, DC, you know, I'll never truly understand what it's like, for protesters in Myanmar and for people experiencing, you know, what they're experiencing on the ground. And I just want to note that, you know, to recognize that, as you know, that's the, you know, the perspective that I'm, you know, bringing here. I think, though, you know, even though the Security Council has manifestly failed to uphold the Responsibility to Protect, I think, what still gives me hope is remembering that, you know, the Responsibility to Protect is its doesn't have any agency of its own. Do you know what I mean? You know, it is a norm, but it isn't an actor. And so that means that it falls upon the international community to uphold it into to take actions that that uphold and institutionalize are to pee. And what that means, I think, is that, you know, RTP really will only ever be as as good as the actors that implement it. And I think one year since the coup, I think it's become increasingly clear that, you know, bilateral action in response to the ongoing atrocities in Myanmar is increasingly necessary, and increasingly urgent. And I think one incident one recent example of, you know, increasing bilateral, bilateral response to, to the, to the ongoing crisis is that the European Union recently, you know, imposed a new slate of sanctions, and, you know, that included sanctions against mo GE, the Myanmar oil and gas enterprise, which is a state backed, you know, oil and gas company. And that goes back to, I promise, I'll circle back to, you know, the point of the question, but that goes back to, you know, one of the things that the military needs to continue perpetrating its crimes is, is access to funds and sanctioning, you know, the oil and gas sector where the military gets a substantial amount of of its funds of revenue to continue perpetrating these crimes. And by sanctioning the oil and gas sector by sanctioning, you know, Mo GE, the European Union has, in this really important way sought to It has, you know, worked to to limit the Myanmar military's access to funds, and therefore, its ability to perpetrate atrocities. And I think that was a really, really important development. Because it shows that or it's an example of enhanced bilateral response to the ongoing crisis in Myanmar in the absence of effective and substantial response from the Security Council. And also, which I haven't brought up yet, but I think it's really important to discuss as well is Azia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. So in the absence of, you know, effective and substantial response from these multilateral organizations, I think I'm hopeful that there is going to be increased bilateral bilateral response to the crisis. And I think just the recent example, that that that I that I flagged of the European Union, and that recent spate of sanctions, I think that's an example of of that, and that gives me hope. I know, it's small. You know, there are definitely far more bad days and steps backward than then good days and steps forward. But I think that is, you know, one, one positive development. And I think that that is something that, you know, I will buy, and I think the, you know, partner organizations that I work with will, you know, continue to, to increasingly call for, of course, we won't forget, you know, will continue to call for action from from the UN, from the Security Council from ASEAN, from these multilateral organizations, but it's especially important now to, to work to work for that, to push for that that bilateral response. I hope that answers your question.

Host  27:01

Yeah, yeah, it does. And I have a follow up question. It's actually not my follow up question. This is a question coming from a member of my audience that fits in? Well, here. The first one is, why even bother with RTP? If it can't be used and applied effectively? And then added? This is a serious question. So they want to, they wanted to indicate this is not a rhetorical question. This is not a criticism, this is a a serious question of what is even the purpose of talking or working towards RTP? If it is just a theory, and it's not able to be used or applied effectively, at least as far as we've seen over a year now?

Liam Scott  27:41

Yeah. I mean, first, I do take that question very seriously. Well, I definitely think that this question is, you know, I think it's a really serious question. I think it's, you know, a valid concern, considering how poor the international community's response to the crisis in Myanmar has been over the past year. And I think first, my first point is, you know, reiterating, reiterating that, you know, although RTP is, is imperfect, it really will only ever be as effective as practitioners make it. So, you know, any, you know, the faults really aren't, I don't think defaults are with the doctrine, they aren't faults with the norm, I think their faults with the international community is, you know, whether it's, you know, the failure to uphold art up as a, you know, as a function of unwillingness or lack of capacity to do so. So, I think that's important to flag. I think what's also, you know, really important to know, is that, you know, RTP is the cornerstone of a trust is a cornerstone of atrocity prevention is an extremely important, you know, political agenda and a way of atrocity prevention, and there isn't anything else, you know, like it. So I guess, even this might not be, you know, a super satisfying response. But, you know, when I think, you know, okay, if, you know, RTP isn't effective, at least in the case of Myanmar, well, you know, what else is there? When it comes to atrocity prevention, and, you know, that might not be the most. So, I think that I think that's also, you know, important to keep in mind that, you know, we don't need more institutions, we don't need more, you know, norms. We don't need more, you know, legal frameworks for this RTP is, you know, it, I think it really is essential still in, in responding to the, you know, ongoing atrocities in Myanmar because, you know, as just, you know, another point is, you know, what else is there to, you know, there's this global Arctic You know, it's a global commitment to, you know, respond to atrocity crimes. And, you know, without that global commitment, without that, you know, moral imperative to respond to atrocity crimes, what else is there? You know, we still need it. If there isn't, you know, that global imperative, what else can at least, you know, from my work, you know, what else do I, you know, it's some, it's so crucial in, you know, my advocacy work, to point to, you know, the responsibility to protect, to remind countries that they made this commitment to uphold the Responsibility to Protect they made this commitment to protect people, their own people, and all people from atrocity crimes. So if you can't point to, you know, this concrete principle, this concrete international norm, that then you know, I don't I, I struggled to, to think of what else really there there is.

Host  31:03

You talk about how RTP is only as good as the practitioners are able to follow it and able to respond. And of course, by practitioners, you're talking about the world actors, the organizations, un easy and as well as powerful countries, regional countries are powerful actors in the world. As far as energy goes, or activists on the ground, is there anything that the national unity government can do to support to bring about or encourage art up? Or are they really helpless and just waiting, hopefully, that others will pick up the cause?

Liam Scott  31:41

What I think is really important to note, and, you know, responding to this, I think of how, you know, following the coup, Dr. Sasa, who is, you know, as one example, who's currently the Union Minister of the Ministry of international cooperation for the new G, you know, he, for one, evoked the Responsibility to Protect and in urging the United Nations to, to respond to the crisis in Myanmar. And so I think that that's one example of what the national unity government, you know, can and I think is doing is, you know, evoking that language, I mean, I think language is super important, when it comes to the responsibility to protect. And I think using using that RTP language using that atrocity prevention language is, is crucial, because it for one, and I think it's really important is that it reminds the international community, this response of this, you know, this commitment that that they made, claims, not one thing, and then I think it can also, you know, evoking RTP in in general terms, but then also, which, you know, I think the N ug has also done is being, you know, specific in, in, in what specific in what particular tools of RTP. They, they want the international community to, to employ, like I said, with, with arms embargoes with sanctions on on oil and gas with depriving the military of the legitimacy, the legitimacy that it craves on the international stage. And I think that national unity government is I think they're doing that, and they think that, you know, even if it's not necessarily under the framework of, you know, saying we should, you know, you should do this, because, you know, RTP says, So, you know, even if they aren't necessarily thinking about it in terms of RTP, you know, it still falls under RTP. And I think that's that, you know, the same goes more broadly for, you know, a lot of countries and in whether it's policy or laws or things like that, you know, that is, you know, a way of upholding RTP, even if countries aren't necessarily thinking about it in those terms. So I think that's, I think, just, you know, note that, does that answer your question?

Host  34:04

Yeah, yeah. Does I guess I'm just reflecting on that. I guess. You know, you you referenced how Dr. Salsa has, has used the term RTP in talking to the UN and other talks he's given. And it it would I wonder if that's all he can do, I wonder if he simply can remind people about it and voc the the meaning and the purpose of it, but then ultimately, it does fall back to somewhat of a helpless state that if those words go those words fall on deaf ears, and they go when he did that, perhaps there's nothing more to be done.

Liam Scott  34:45

Yeah, I mean, I think that the, you know, I understand that criticism. And, you know, I definitely, you know, empathize with that criticism in and I think, you know, We read about this in one publication. But, you know, after, you know, obviously, after the coup, I've said this already, you know, protesters were evoking RTP in massive numbers. I at least maybe this hasn't been recorded in the media as much, maybe I just haven't seen it. But I haven't seen protesters in in recent months, evoking or to pee, at least not in the scale that that they did at the beginning of the this crisis, you know, fall, you know, in February and March and April. And I think that, you know, I think, you know, tying back to your point and Dr. Sasa, I think that is in part because perhaps is, you know, calls call upon, you know, international years of and indifferent international community, or an international community that perhaps will not entirely indifferent, and I don't think it is entirely indifferent, I think, you know, there are several countries, you know, anything of the Security Council, they aren't, you know, they, they care very much, but, you know, because of, you know, perhaps a more accurate way of framing it is, you know, those calls fell upon, not and in different international community, but at least in the Security Council, you know, a deadlocked or, you know, a gridlocked Security Council. But in terms of, you know, what other things, the, you know, beyond just, you know, calling for, you know, art up, I mean, to a certain degree, you know, I guess, you know, a lot of what, you know, the work that that we do, is, you know, at the Global Center, it's, you know, working with, you know, states, you know, in a lot of in, you know, behind the scenes advocacy to, to work with them, and to encourage, you know, certain responses to ongoing atrocities. And obviously, those responses fall under, you know, the, the norm of, of our two p, but, you know, the global center isn't, you know, we don't have the capacity either to, you know, a lot of people say, you know, invoking our to P by, you know, for instance, sending in peacekeepers, you know, we don't have we obviously don't have that, you know, capacity as, as an NGO, you know, don't think we should disparage the value of, you know, the energy, you know, evoking, you know, calling for, you know, the international community to uphold the responsibility to protect both, you know, publicly and public statements and things like that, but also in those, you know, behind the scenes, private, private meetings and private private conversations, I think, I really do think that that goes a long way. I really do think that is that is effective.

Host  37:57

Right, and you had mentioned how you haven't seen so many RTP signs or calls for RTP lately is the beginning, which I think is very true. And I think this also shows us the narrative and the movement of what the protests have done and where they've gone. I think this also connects back to that relationship between RTP and the PDF groups, that is still trying to be defined and understood. And I think that among Burmese activists, there's, there's there was this, this call and this plea for RTP are supportive and kind. And for whatever reason, whether whether it was indifference, whether it was gridlock, short attention span, domestic problem somewhere else, whatever, whatever the reason was, because there was no RTP that was coming. They there was a realization in the country that that it would be foolish to continue to hope for support from any other body and that they needed to rely on themselves. And because they were facing a foe that only spoke one language and that language was violence and aggression, that this is the only language they could speak back in order to protect their lives and their lights and everything else. And so I think that that there's a direct inverse proportion between the activists cleaning RTP and clean for RTP. And on the other hand, the formation of the PDF groups, I think the formation that PDF groups can be when many years from now the history of this whole thing is told, I think that it will, it'll show pretty conclusively that those PDF groups were started to take shape as the hope for RTP started to fade away and as people started to realize, no one is going to save us then there started to be a an exploration of how do we save ourselves and that led to what we see now which some are calling an impact. The Civil War so I, I don't know where, you know, there's no there's no real good answers here. There's no not even really any good questions. This is just characterizing how things have been and where we're at. And and I suppose the one one way to look at this or one thing to ask is, Does this mean the ship for RTP in Myanmar has sailed is are we past that point? Most of I think the fact that, as you noted that calls for RTP are no longer coming out of Myanmar in any real sizable way as it was before. As you've noted, in your letters, you have pictures on your website, you referenced in this in this talk, that, that these the individuals or organizations within Myanmar were referencing and maybe really for one of the first time that it came in public vernacular of, of expressing and calling for this. And that is now dropped, referenced in the question that I asked a moment ago, why someone in the country asking why bother with even talking about RTP if it can't be used and applied effectively. And so if if there's been this kind of turn inside the country, that that that has felt like there's no one coming to our aid, RTP is not going to manifest, we need to find those resources ourselves. Not to say that if suddenly RTP were to come that it wouldn't be welcomed with open arms, many people in the country, but that at least the hope of it, the expectation of it has left the barn. So I wonder what you think of that. And from your standpoint, where you're still advocating and working for RTP? In DC, what what you think the prospects or possibilities of that are?

Liam Scott  41:45

No, I mean, I think that's really great analysis. You know, I think, I mean, first and foremost, it saddens me, you know, a great deal to, you know, think about that, you know, those calls for the Responsibility to Protect really went, you know, unanswered by for the international community in in an effective and insubstantial way. And I think perhaps, you know, I think it is perhaps I think, perhaps, I mean, perhaps the way that I think about it in terms of, you know, this inverse relationship. I mean, I don't know, I think it is, you know, as you know, protests were, you know, ongoing and in gaining, you know, momentum, as, you know, the international community just, you know, failed to do anything substantial. I agree with you, I do think that, you know, that's when you see, you know, increased these PDFs, you know, really starting to form across the country. And going back to you so, you know, going back to your question of, you know, is it still worthwhile? I think, just to clarify, your question is, you know, is it still worthwhile to, you know, call for art up and, you know, is hope of RTP lost? I don't think so, I think I mean, I think, first of all, you know, my first response to that is, you know, I think if we abandon our to p. If we abandon the Responsibility to Protect when it comes to me and bar, then I think that I really do think then, in some ways that would be letting the chocolate I win. And I think that abandoning, you know, our TUPE would, would be a concession to, to the military. So beyond that, beyond that, for, you know, I think that might be more, you know, symbolic, but more concretely, I don't, you know, going back to, you know, as I mentioned, recent EU sanctions, you know, there have been asleep of, of sanctions recently, from from a number of different countries, that does fall under, that is an example of, you know, their responsibility to protect, you know, they might not be as effective as we would like them to be them and not beyond the specific industries, we would like them to be, namely, of course, you know, oil, gas, timber, et cetera. But that is still, you know, a manifestation of, of these countries upholding the Responsibility to Protect, you know, I also think of, you know, companies like, you know, Chevron that that recently or not, it was a couple of weeks ago now, but withdrew has withdrawn On from from Myanmar, over, you know, the human rights abuses there, you know, I think that that speaks to, you know, the responsibility of, you know, the corporate of, you know, corporations to, you know, really look at their will. And in all of this, and I think that, you know, those recent developments of, you know, more oil and gas companies, international oil and gas companies withdrawing from the country. I think that is, you know, a positive development as, as well. And I think that, you know, in some ways, I think, yeah, I think it does fall under, you know, RTP, as well. So, we are still, you know, I think so I cite those examples, as, you know, in defense of, you know, maintaining calls for RTP, because, you know, we are seeing these instances, albeit small, albeit, certainly, certainly insufficient and inadequate to effectively combat the hunter. They're still there. And, you know, they're still a response. And I think we need to, you know, I think when it comes to art up, you know, a lot of times, you know, a common a lot of you know, I think a misconception about RTP is thinking only about it in terms of R to P meaning intervention of either peacekeepers or, you know, boots on the ground intervention. A lot. That's, that's really, you know, that isn't, a lot of times, that's not what most of the times, I think that's really not what our two p means. But when we don't see it in that way, we kind of think that that means our two P has has failed, because it's not, you know, manifesting in the ways that, that we think it should, or are the ways that the only ways that we think it can, but I think that we do see RTP and, and those those minor ways, and I think that, you know, recognizing, and perhaps applauding is I think a potting is too strong of a word, but I think I'll leave it at, you know, recognizing those, those small steps. And, as a small successes in, in the response, you know, if we only if, you know, I think if we only talk about, you know, the response to, you know, the crisis in Myanmar, but also the, you know, the response to any, you know, crisis, if you only talk about it in terms of, you know, all of it as as a failure, then I think that, you know, that makes it harder to, you know, move forward, because then it's kind of, you know, a mentality of, you know, well, what can we do, there's nothing we can do, when, in fact, there is a lot that you can do, and I think by, you know, recognizing the small steps forward, is, can be fodder for, you know, bigger steps and, and more impactful steps and more impactful decisions. And so I think that that, you know, I think that, you know, that's their way of saying that are arguing, you know, in favor of, you know, the fact that there is still I think there is 100% You know, still hope, and for you know, a for art up guiding, you know, centrally guiding the international response to to this crisis.

Host  48:39

Yeah, thanks for that. I really appreciate that kind of nuanced view, if it's not looking at in terms of failure or success and defining success mainly as UN or other boots on the ground that are actually engaged in fighting and looking at these other aspects of where, where support can come and where, what forms protection can take place. However, one thing I'm thinking is that this failure on that part of the international community, it's not only impacting lives in the present, but it's endangering so many more going forward. And I referenced this because something you wrote was, quote, The continued inaction on part of the UN Security Council, the world body tasked with maintaining international peace and security has bolstered the confidence of Myanmar military and has entrenched impunity and quote, this is definitely something I've noticed as well during the course of the year. And what came to mind when I when when I read your comment, and I've also thought this before, strangely enough, it was Trump's famous quip and the run up to the election when he remarked he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue shoot them dead and not lose support. And the connection I'm making with this is that there's there's a measure of of impunity and being able to progress along a certain line where you just wonder what what does one have to do to lose whatever support that is and lose that momentum, that that is propelling it forward. And that that's what Trump himself was indicating was that he had so much support, he can shoot someone dead in Times Square, and he wouldn't lose it. And people started to ask, Well, what what could actually start to? What could trump do? That would be too far? So that's the question I'm wondering about the Burmese military. What can they do that is too far, what is a line beyond which they cannot pass? That is that is a bridge too far. And we saw this actually, this even even in the early weeks of the protests, we started seeing signs that said, really, really graphically. And tragically, how many dead bodies will it take for the UN to send forces that people were wondering, there was a terrible image of a or just devastating image of an old man holding a sign saying that if my death is what it will take for action to come kill me now. And let me stop the senseless carnage that's going to come after. Just take me if that's if that's going to do it. And so I, I wonder, what, and looking at RTP and understand the way we've defined RTP now it's not it's this gradation where where there's different levels of different kinds of action. And and I think you're you're pointing to a wider and more nuanced definition than how it's typically used in Myanmar, which is really, really some kind of intervention coming and saving them. But what, in terms of that more? The bolder definition of RCEP? Do you have any thought as to knowing the international community better than I do, and probably better than many of the listeners, given your your your work in DC in your advocacy? Do you have any idea or gas about what lines the tatmadaw would would ultimately cross that would eventually be too far, that it would propel a further action? I mean, we we've seen them burn people alive, we've seen bomb indiscriminately. We've seen them commit mass rape and torture, we've seen them target doctors and journalists and an arrest with impunity, we've seen such an egregious series of acts, and those acts are getting ramped up and ramped up and ramped up. Is, is there a bridge that's too far that that that would propel the international community into a greater action concerning RTB?

Liam Scott  52:32

That's really that's I think that's really interesting analysis. I had not thought of, you know, the connection with that Trump quote, and in the tatmadaw. But, you know, at first glance, I think you're, I think that's pretty spot on. And, you know, I, you know, my first thought is, you know, I really don't, I don't know what the line is. I mean, I feel like the toddler has crossed every line, you know, possible. I mean, I think of, you know, two main, you know, big examples that I think of of, you know, specific attacks, you know, I think of thought long and in Chin State, I think the last tally has been, you know, 25 separate airstrikes. I think it might be more by now, but I think I saw, I think the number was 25, according to me and my witness. And, you know, I think of the the Christmas Eve massacre, where I'll be honest, I don't recall the exact number. But when we're, you know, civilians, including children, and cute, including Save the Children, staffers were, you know, as you know, that they were, you know, killed and burned. And, you know, if that isn't what it takes to spur the international community to respond, then. You know, what, what, I think? I mean, I don't know what what it would take, but I think that, I think what it would take is, I think it's a matter of, you know, when does this start to become more of a, you know, regional or, sadly, I do think that it, the line might be, you know, when does this become something that impacts more than, you know, when it when it when it affects more than the people within Myanmar's borders. And I think that is I think that's, you know, I think that's extremely unfortunate that that that, you know, that is, you know, that that might be the line at this point, you know, I would think the line, I mean, just for the record, I mean, I think the line should was should have been. I mean, like I said they've probably feel like they've crossed every line in the book at this point. You know, if not, you know, Then the If not now, then when? But I think, you know, based on, you know, the international community's response so far, I think it will be when, you know, since we haven't crossed the line yet, I think the line must then be, when is this going to, you know, start impacting, you know, other countries more. And, you know, we've seen, you know, more, you know, refugees fleeing over the border into India, into, you know, more into, into Thailand, for instance. So, you know, perhaps the line, then, you know, if it isn't all of the atrocities that the military has perpetrated so far, then, which, you know, really, it's only impacting, you know, me and most people, then I feel like the line must be, you know, perhaps the line for the international community will be when it really starts to impact impact them. And I think that's really unfortunate that that might be the mentality that the international community has adopted here. But you know, when it you know, as you said, you know, Myanmar is on the brink of, of the Civil War, you know, in you, UN officials have have been saying that, as well, that Myanmar is on the brink of civil war. And, you know, I think the numbers have displayed, you know, internal displacement are, you know, of course, increasing, I think the latest tallies are, you know, over 440,000 people have been displaced since the coup, that's just simply who there are over 100,000 people internally displaced, in Myanmar in general. And I think, you know, as violence continues to escalate, there's a really great risk that this will turn into, in addition to what it is now, I think it will, you know, I think it'll be an increasingly urgent refugee crisis is already a very urgent refugee crisis. But I think that is more, you know, is more people, you know, flee Myanmar fleeing violence in Myanmar to other countries, than perhaps that would be the final straw for the international community. That is my that's my guess. That's my, that's my analysis. But, you know, I think it's really unfortunate that, you know, if that is the case, then I think it's unfortunate that, you know, the international community would have, you know, waited until, you know, the crisis really started to affect affect them and be, you know, an inconvenience for them, that that's when they decided to, to, you know, take more of a substantial to have more of a substantial response. I hope that's not true. I hope that's not the case. But, you know, based on the, you know, lack of response so far, I, you know, I feel like that would be perhaps the next line that the top that I could could cross that that really impacts the international community more. But then I think, just broadly, the last thing I'll say, before I wrap up on this point is, you know, when it comes to atrocity prevention in general, prevention is always cheaper than just from a pure, purely looking at this, you know, black and white, you know, financial point of view. Prevention is always cheaper than response. But we're past that, you know, we can prove that we can work to prevent, you know, further atrocities, and that's what we're, you know, that's what I'm trying to do that sort of, you know, human rights, you know, advocates are trying to do, but you're the inner security. I mean, we're at the point of, you know, it's at the point of response. I mean, it's past the point of prevention, you know, atrocities are ongoing. You know, obviously, we're, you know, like I said, working to prevent further atrocities, but, you know, prevention is, you know, it's a cheaper option, it's an easier option than waiting for it to get to the point that it is now. I hope that I hope that's clear. I hope that makes sense.

Host  59:06

Yeah, yeah, it definitely does. And I want to turn back to United Nations again. You had referenced elsewhere that the UN Security Council has met nine times since the coup, and it's issued six statements, but it's taken exactly zero substantive actions. Why do you think this is the case? We talked a bit before about why the UK is not having more transparency and you gave some theories and why things were all behind closed doors and there's not a veto vote. This is a slightly different angle on that question. And looking at, not why they're doing what they're doing openly or closed or taking, taking, bringing things to action or not, but just looking at why they're there continues to be there, these meetings taking place, whether they're closed or open their statements that are that are coming out, but even And there's not any kind of substantive action, even on a minimal level, even on the lowest basic level, we're talking about the third wave of COVID crashing through, we're talking about IDPs. And refugees we're talking about, it's spilling over into other countries and on and on that, that there hasn't even been a baseline minimal action taken to any degree. So why do you think that is?

Liam Scott  1:00:23

Okay. Um, I mean, I think that's, you know, that's a great point when, when you're looking at, you know, what is the Security Council done so far, they've met privately, and they put out statements, and pretty, pretty tepid statements at at that. And I guess, I don't know, if this, this might be, you know, similar to my previous response, but, you know, at least in terms of, you know, why hasn't the Security Council done anything more, you know, substantial, you know, what they could do, like, like, like imposing an arms embargo, or sanctions, you know, things with, you know, teeth, you know, like, the stick type of responses, that, you know, only the international that only the Security Council can do, as you know, as an international body. I think it does come down to, you know, deadlock, Amman, Security Council members to, to do anything truly effective.

Host  1:01:35

So, let's turn our attention now to the UN's independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar, also known as double I double M. This was founded in 2018. Can you tell us more about this unit?

Liam Scott  1:01:48

Yeah, I think I think it's important to start in 2017, actually, when the Human Rights Council Council established a fact finding mission on Myanmar, so another Investigative Mechanism to look into human rights abuses in Myanmar. And then, you know, they issued their report, and then it kind of essentially turned into, or it's kind of replaced by the double IWM in 2019. And the W WM is doing, you know, really, I think they're doing really great work, you know, collecting and preserving evidence of, you know, the the human rights abuses that the tatmadaw is is perpetrating. They look into they investigate abuses that had been a concern that had been perpetrated since 2011. So since 2011, up until, you know, the President so they're still they're investigating, you know, ongoing crimes as well, which is really important that, you know, they can, but there isn't like, a temporal limit on on that, on their, I guess, their mandate, you know, going forward. You know, the limit is, you know, back until 2011, but they can, they are, you know, investigating crimes that the military has committed since the coup and is, you know, continuing to commit. And, you know, the W W M, fits into it, I think it's good to think about it within the broader context of, you know, justice and accountability, when it comes to to Myanmar. And, you know, other you know, noteworthy things, perhaps the most one of the most noteworthy other developments there is, in 2019, when, when the Gambia filed, no, of course, in the Gambia filed in iCj case, you know, a case at the International Court of Justice, against Myanmar for for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention for, you know, the genocides, the military committed against the Rohingya in 2017. And that is, you know, a very, very important case, that's, you know, of course, ongoing with, you know, hearings actually taking place, you know, this week as we as we record this podcast at The Hague. But I think in terms of, you know, justice and accountability, you know, the, the double IWM is really important, just for, like I said, collecting evidence of, you know, what, what crimes has the military perpetrated, and that really helps for, you know, achieving accountability and for, you know, achieving justice. And I think the last thing that I want to note before before I turn it back to you, in terms of, you know, justice and accountability is, you know, that too, is an integral part of the responsibility to protect and it's a really important component of, of the work that we do at the Global Center is, you know, looking to champion justice and indica inability, and that's for a few reasons. I mean, on the one hand, you know, of course, you know, victims and survivors, they, they deserve justice they deserve, you know, reparations, they deserve to have their, you know, what would happen to them, they deserve the, you know, the the atrocities to be, you know, cemented in, in a historical record through, you know, through a trial. And more than that, you know, trials and, you know, accountability mechanisms, which, to go back to your question, the double A double and, you know, you know, fits within the, you know, justice and accountability is a really important component of atrocity prevention, you know, one important, you know, one atrocity risk is, you know, atrocities are more likely to happen, where, you know, they've happened before, you know, if you have, you know, a resurgence and violence in a way to combat or the way to, to prevent, you know, prevention, a way to prevent a resurgence of violence and a return to of atrocity crimes is through accountability. And, you know, one main one main reason there is because, you know, if perpetrators are held accountable, then, you know, they realize, oh, there are actually, you know, consequences if I do, if I if I commit these crimes. But there has been, you know, as you referenced, there is entrenched impunity, that, that the military continues to, to enjoy. And, you know, part of that, I think, could be is, you know, because, you know, these accountability mechanisms take a very long time. And, you know, it would have obviously, would have been great if they had been, you know, say they if they had started earlier, but, you know, they started when they started, and, you know, they're doing really important work now, to to hold, you know, the tatmadaw and other people, other actors, you know, accountable for the, at least in terms of the ICJ case, the 2017 genocide against the Rohingya, but, you know, that could lay the groundwork for, you know, broader accountability for you know, all in all, you know, everyone in, in Myanmar, who has, you know, suffered, and from, you know, suffered at the hands of, of the military.

Host  1:07:39

Yeah, I'm glad you referenced that case, because I've also read that the UN Human Rights Council's factfinding mission, it concluded that min, Aung Hlaing should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity, not just against Rohingya, but throughout Rakhine could Shan Shan State, and that he quit. And they concluded that, quote, he continues to harbor genocidal intent towards the Rohingya. So it strikes me that if this was the official findings in 2018, and nothing came of it, it does feel increasingly hopeless to await for any kind of response in 2022. Of course, this might be a case of an outsider who is looking for bold Evidence of Progress being taken place and of rights being wrong, and justice can work a slower, more nuanced way that those of us not in the inner loop can not necessarily have the patience or appreciation for. So I see that with without understanding as well. But what are your thoughts on this?

Liam Scott  1:08:42

Yeah, I think that's, you know, I think that's a good point. I think. I think one, I think I just want to highlight, you know, the significance of the ICJ case, you know, again, as a really important step in working toward, you know, justice in, in that case, and I think, you know, the fact, you know, the Gambia, which is, you know, a pretty small country, is the case is the country that, you know, bought this against Myanmar really demonstrates that, you know, it doesn't matter what, no, what, you know, what, how big the country is or how much clout, you know, they have in the international system. But, you know, that really any country can, can win work to, you know, ensure that, you know, other, you know, perpetrators of atrocity crimes are held accountable. I think that, you know, yeah, not all of the not all of the, you know, routes for, for justice have been explored fully the case, you know, the Security Council, I think still, you know, one of the things that you know, another thing that we you know, We call for this for the Security Council to refer the situation to, to the ICC for the ICC to, you know, to hold perpetrators accountable, as well. But I think that, you know, I think that, you know, it isn't all, you know, yeah. I think that there could be more done. But I think that we also should highlight, you know, the positive developments as, as well. And I think one one thing that I do want to highlight, you know, again, in terms of, you know, international justice, that, you know, shows that there is, you know, there are being positive developments, and it's not all a complete failure, because it isn't all complete failure is, you know, back in 2021, I think in the fall of 2021. Argentina's judiciary announced that they would be under under the principle of universal jurisdiction, announced that they would be opening a case against senior senior officials from Myanmar, who are responsible for for the the the Rohingya genocide. And, you know, it is those, those bold that bold Yeah, it's those bold moves, it's those creative moves for, to achieve, to work toward, you know, justice, that is, I think we should, you know, celebrate alongside, you know, recognizing, you know, other failures of the international community, because that is, you know, that is a really positive development against the backdrop of a lot of failures, in terms of international justice, in addition to the many other facets of, of this crisis.

Host  1:11:59

Right. You, you've written that the UN's W. Wm, the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar has collected evidence that quote, If substantiated would amount to crimes against humanity, and, quote, this is an extremely serious charge that could potentially tip the scales of the international response. But what is standing in the way of them being able to to substantiate it?

Liam Scott  1:12:26

Well, it's the fact that, you know, the double A double M isn't, you know, a body that can, you know, it's not a court that can, you know, prove, or can they can officially say, you know, crimes against humanity happened or, or genocide happened or war crimes happened, that's just not how it, you know, kind of functions, it's an investigative mechanism. So that would fall upon, it falls upon a court to make that official determination. So whether it be the ICC, or the ICJ, or under the principle of universal jurisdiction, you know, a country like Argentina, to, to investigate that. So that's, you know, I guess what's, you know, kind of standing in, in the ways that that's not, you know, the, the, the function of, of the double IWM?

Host  1:13:22

Right, right. And let's move on now to talking about ACN. This is the organization consisting of 10 Southeast Asian Nations, and checking in about their response or their lack of response. Yeah, you wrote, quote, There are serious doubts regarding the effectiveness and commitment of ACN to address Myanmar's human rights and humanitarian catastrophe and quote, for those of us following the Myanmar situation, I can safely say that this is very much stating the obvious question is, is there anything that can be done about it?

Liam Scott  1:13:57

Well, you know, just for background for listeners who might not I guess, no, you know, the main, or one of the main things that ASEAN has done in response to, to this crisis is, you know, what's called the Five point consensus. So, you know, five stipulations for, you know, that are supposed to guide the UN's response to the crisis, they have not been implemented effectively at all, to state and that's an understatement. What, and I think, you know, just to contest contextualizing, you know, as the UN's overall inaction in response to this is, you know, overall as the on it, you know, as the body is, you know, pretty silent and it doesn't do much on, you know, human rights abuses in any of its countries, any of its member states. I think, you know, it's not I, you know, unique to Myanmar, that it's unfortunate that the reality, um, it's not unique to Myanmar the ASEAN has done so little in response, so I think, you know, that context is, you know, important to when it comes to, you know, thinking about how ASEAN operates, in terms of what they have done. I think one of the main things, and I think this is, I think it's really important to highlight this is, you know, in their October summit Zeon, blocked the the military from sending a representative instead instead, you know, extending an invitation to a non political representative. Myanmar ended up not sending anyone in the same thing, you know, the same circumstances for a February, it wasn't a summit, it was a retreat in, in Cambodia, again, as the on, you know, blocked the military from sending, you know, a military a political representative, instead of extending an invitation to a non political representative. Again, the emergence in anyone. And, you know, that very small in the grand scheme of things, it's very, you know, that's, that's small. But what it does do is, you know, it limits the, or it prevents the military from, you know, getting the, the legitimacy, you know, getting back to that was that point of legitimacy, you know, it is a small way of preventing the, the military from, from obtaining the international legitimacy that, that it really, it really desperately wants. So, that is one positive thing, I think that might be the main, you know, positive thing that ASEAN has done. I hope they'll continue to do that. And I think more broadly, what else Ozzy could do, is, I think that we won't really see if history is any indicator, we won't see a response from Zeon as an entity, we won't see, you know, an organizational response more than, you know, what we we have seen, which, you know, among other things, they appointed, they've appointed, you know, an ASEAN envoy to Myanmar, to, to, I guess, kind of, you know, could be, it's kind of comparable to the special envoy and Myanmar, the UN special envoy, and Myanmar, they kind of operate, you know, similarly. But I think, beyond what, what, what what ASEAN has done so far, you know, I don't think we'll see much more organizational response from from the body because, you know, historically, the body has not, you know, operated in that way. And, again, that goes back to my point on, you know, really, you know, pushing more for, you know, bilateral response in the absence of this, you know, multilateral you know, engagement. And I think, you know, I think especially more concerted a more, you know, urgent, substantial response from ASEAN member states would go a long way. Because they are, you know, obviously, they're me and my neighbors, they are, you know, members of the same multilateral organization. And I think that would, you know, a more effective, you know, a more robust response from ASEAN member states on a bilateral capacity would send a really important message to, to the tatmadaw. Whether that be you know, that should include, you know, arms embargoes, even though you know, even though technically, you know, those four countries that have sold arms to Myanmar since the coup, you know, no se, no member of ASEAN has has, you know, an arms embargo on Myanmar has imposed an arms embargo on Myanmar. And I think, you know, even though they don't think they're selling, you know, arms to Myanmar, just symbolically that goes a long way. And I think the same could be said for, you know, for ASEAN member states, imposing, you know, sanctions on those key industries. I think what goes a long way, and it goes even further, because they are me and Mars, regional neighbors. I think that that would that would I think that would be really, I think that that's really important.

Host  1:19:45

Right? So, changing tracks a little bit. I want to read a question verbatim that a listener from Myanmar sent in and get your take on what this person is asking. They say we can understand that UN forces are peacekeeping forces, and do not have the capability to fully engage with minimum length dogs as a frontal assault. However, well the UN force be able to come in as police to keep the stability. Once the PDF engages in unlikes dogs and freeze the cities, will you and forces be able to help the PDFs, run POW camps and maintain civility. We believe we can fight and we can win the fight. We want the UN peacekeeping forces to join hands with us once we liberate the cities to maintain peace and stability. We will fight can you guys keep the peace?

Liam Scott  1:20:38

Thank you. Oh, I should have said this earlier. But I do want to thank everyone who did submit questions. To to the podcast. You know, I really appreciate it really appreciate the engagement on that particular point. You know, I really don't know, my my inclination would be I don't know if that would be a likely response from the Security Council because the Security Council is, you know, the body that can impose those measures, you know, they're the body that decides whether, you know, where to send peacekeepers, and, you know, the extent of the mandate and all the details on that. And I, you know, if if the Security Council can can't, you know, even meet publicly, you know, Myanmar? I don't think they would, I think it's, you know, almost, in, you know, it's very, it's very unlikely that that they would, you know, manage to send peacekeepers to, to Myanmar.

Host  1:21:49

Right, thanks for that. And I know, these are, these are sensitive topics and people writing and asking out of some desperation, another kind of desperate request that we've heard. And maybe you can also break this down and explain it and talked about arms embargoes and the arms that have been going to, to to the military, and that you've mentioned, for countries that have been guilty of selling arms to the tatmadaw, even after the coup, there have been some from the country that have said, well, you know, if, if no one will come to help us if we're completely alone, if RTP is a principle and not something people put into action, and I understand now, that's not quite fair to say there's, there's there's smaller and more nuanced degrees of RTP taking place. They're talking about the bolder actions they'd like to see. But as the question goes, if if we are on our own, and we're, we have to protect ourselves and and resist, why can't the international community at least allow us to receive defensive equipment such as bulletproof vests or ways to, to to or medicine even, that is able to get through? Or even on a more bolder skill weaponry? If there is no arms embargo? And the countries are openly selling weaponry to the top that are? Why can't the N ug or the PDFs? Or the Ayios? Why can't they then if they if they're left to defend themselves? Because no one's helping? Can they at least get the mechanism to defend themselves? This is another question that that I've heard repeatedly over the last few months. So how would you how would you take that one on? How would you respond to that?

Liam Scott  1:23:36

That's a tough question. I mean, I don't know if I'm the best person to answer that specifically, to be honest. But in terms of, you know, I obviously understand, you know, where that question comes from? I completely understand, you know, the logic. And, you know, the thinking that, that goes into that. And, like you said, I completely, you know, recognize and empathize with the fact that, you know, so many of these questions are coming from a place of, you know, pure desperation and frustration with an international community that has done so, so little in response. But in terms of the question of, I really don't I, I'll be honest, I don't, I don't. First, it hasn't been, you know, that doesn't really it hasn't been, you know, a topic that has come up in, you know, discussions with with member states, I don't I, again, I don't mean to, I don't want to just sound like I'm shooting down these, you know, ideas. And I hope i i hope it doesn't come across that that way. But I don't know if that. I don't think that it would be reasonable. That states would think it would be reasonable to to provide, you know, arms for one thing, I think humanitarian aid is, is a, you know, another discussion entirely, you know, I work with, you know, we don't work, the global center doesn't work directly on, you know, the nuances of, you know, supplying humanitarian aid to, to different, you know, to conflict zones. But, so again, I can't answer super, you know, super, you know, in a super detailed way on that. But I do work with, you know, some other groups that, that do work on more on the humanitarian side of things. And, you know, they, I mean, part of the, you know, to state the obvious, I mean, a major hindrance is, you know, to, you know, human to, you know, getting humanitarian aid into Myanmar is, you know, the military and, and how difficult, you know, the military is obviously, you know, to work with, and, in the, you know, unwillingness to, to perhaps, maybe in flexibility is a better term to, you know, permit, you know, humanitarian aid and, you know, sufficient to permit sufficient humanitarian aid, you know, I think of, you know, your, you know, a lot of times with, you know, airstrikes on cities, a lot of times that comes with, you know, blockades that prevents the, or prevents civilians from, from fleeing the city, and it also prevents humanitarian, you know, actors from, from entering and providing aid that, you know, that's desperately needed. So I think that is, you know, just to highlight, you know, I guess, perhaps stating the obvious that, you know, I think that is the main, the main, you know, block to, you know, providing sufficient humanitarian aid, but at the same time, you know, I think of, you know, refugee camps in, in Bangladesh, refugee camps in, in Thailand, and, you know, since the coup, a lot of countries have withdrawn, or with reduced the aid that they provide, to these, these camps. And I think that, you know, I think I mean, to put it simply, that, I think that's the wrong sort of, you know, the state should continue to, you know, provide, you know, to help fund and provide, you know, resources and funds to, to help these, you know, to these refugee camps, you know, especially, you know, conditions in these refugee camps, especially, and, and, you know, Bangladesh, for instance, our, our, you know, terrible, I mean, terrible conditions. And, you know, I think that, you know, again, the the international community could could be doing much more to, you know, improve the conditions for, for refugees, you know, especially considering how, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the flow of refugees is only it's only going to increase for for the foreseeable future. And I think more could be done to, you know, you in preparation for, for that, you know, kind of inevitable result.

Host  1:28:40

Right, right. Thanks for that. I have one final question here. And I, we've looked at the situation of RTP from a number of different angles, a number of different actors. And I want to end on looking at the view from the ground. From more normal people engaged in this and what they might do. Within the document democracy movement, or supporters of that. You've written quote, the previously frequent invocations of RGB have waned amongst Myanmar's protesters, perhaps because they fail upon seemingly in different years. Norms don't maintain their in international weight through rhetoric alone, large up, like all international norms, has no independent volition or agency, it will not succeed because of its intellectual purity or fail because of false in its academic design. The principle of RTP will only ever be as effective as practitioners make it and quote, and I should say, this is something you've also referenced in this talk. Today, you've you've referenced several times that it's only as effective as practitioners make it. Those practitioners we've looked at as being the international community, different organizations of nations, and I'm wondering, is there anything that you think protesters on the ground or activists on the ground can do to to make their voices heard or bring about RGP, within Myanmar, or for that matter, those that are listening to this now that are not, don't necessarily have any power in their own life or influence, or are simply listening to this with with goodwill and well wishing, either those on the ground and Myanmar, are those allies on the ground, outside of the country living in relative safety, but concerned about this, is there anything that us little people can do to support this? Or is it really just kind of waiting around for the big actors to get their act together?

Liam Scott  1:30:36

Mm hmm. No, I think it's a really important, you know, question, I think, you know, broadly, you know, approaching this question broadly at first, you know, when you're thinking about, you know, conflict prevention, and, and responding to conflict and atrocity prevention, it's so important to really center the voices of the people on the ground, and to, you know, center those experiences and listen to, you know, what they want, and what their concerns are, because they're the ones who obviously are, you know, experiencing the instability and the conflict and the violence and the atrocities, and they're the ones who will, you know, be experiencing, whatever the aftermath is, of the international communities, whatever, you know, policies, you know, countries impose or, you know, bodies impose, or whatever they don't impose, and whatever they don't do. So, it's really I think, you know, you know, I want to you know, highlight how important it is to center, those those voices of, you know, people on the ground and you people who, who come from these communities to people on the ground, and also people from from the diaspora who either perhaps, you know, perhaps fled violence years ago, perhaps recently, perhaps they still have family members in, in Myanmar, or in refugee camps. You know, it's so important to, to really center those, those voices. And it's something that, you know, I, you know, the Global Center tries to do when it comes to Myanmar, and, you know, all the countries situations that we work on, and, you know, it's something that a lot of our partner organizations, really, you know, try to emphasize, as well. And I think, you know, just going off of that, you know, in some ways, when you think about, you know, I think the diaspora plays, you know, an especially important role here for a couple of reasons, you know, obviously, you know, people on the ground are, you know, facing, you know, a risk of atrocities, that it's only increasing. And there really, there is, truly there is danger in, you know, you know, speaking out or say you're, you know, going to, you know, being for instance, you know, the recent phenomenon of, you know, citizen citizens, journalists, as you know, the military, you know, really clamped down on press freedom. I mean, of course, you know, immense courage in what, you know, protesters and journalists and everyone is doing in Myanmar, to, to, you know, thwart the tatmadaw. But, of course, that comes with, you know, risks, the diaspora, however, you know, faces, you know, less risks, and in speaking out, and, you know, I think, and, you know, calling for, you know, you know, action from, from the international community. And so, I think it's, you know, voices on the ground, and, you know, you know, really, you know, of course, you know, centering, you know, the voices of affected people in general, but I think especially in you know, in the case of Myanmar, I think that I asked for it plays a really important role. And they had been, you know, and I don't mean, I don't mean to imply that, you know, they haven't been, you know, measuring up to that they went 1,000% have been and they have been, you know, that mean that, you know, the diaspora has, you know, is very vocal and works, you know, incredibly, incredibly hard to, to spur, you know, effective international response, and it's, you know, humbling to to, to witness that and to work with, you know, both members of the diaspora and also people who are, you know, still underground and in Myanmar, it's a humbling Koreans to work with them. And, you know, an honor to work with them. And I think, you know, that's what is, you know, if there's like one last, like, a final note to leave on, is really just to drive home how important it is to, for, you know policymakers to, to listen to people who are, you know, affected by this violence, whether they are on the ground or, or in the diaspora or, you know, wherever they may be, those are the perspectives that should be front and center, those are the people that should be, you know, in the room, whether it's, you know, briefing the Security Council or briefing, you know, whoever, you know, those are the voices that that need to be, you know, amplified. And, you know, I think that's one of the roles that one of the jobs that that I, you know, tried to do and the Global Center tries to do is, is, you know, being, you know, a mechanism to, to amplify those voices and to, you know, bridge the gap between, you know, people on the ground, people who are affected by these, you know, most affected by these crimes to the people who can in the policymakers who can actually, you know, do something about it. I hope that answers your question.

Host  1:36:27

Yeah, yeah, it does. I really appreciate that. I appreciate the answer this one. And to the overall discussion, I think it's been quite informative, at least for me, I'm sure for many listeners, this is a really important topic. And the work that you're doing has never had a greater testcase playing out in front of us in real time than the Myanmar. So your, your work is right in the thick of it with everything. So I think Information is power. It's important for all of us that care about this and that are affected to hear someone on the inside of one issue and better understand it from in more depth than just the major talking points that that it's hit so. So I really appreciate that. And thanks so much for coming on here and sharing your knowledge and your activism as well.

Liam Scott  1:37:15

Thank you so much for the opportunity to come to come on your podcast and to speak about you know, our 2pm in Myanmar, I really, really appreciate the opportunity.

Host  1:37:33

Many listeners know that in addition to running these podcast episodes, we also run a nonprofit that or Burma, which carries out humanitarian projects across Myanmar. While we regularly post about current needs and proposals from groups on the ground. We also handle emergency requests, often in matters that are quite literally life or death. When those urgent requests come in, we have no time to conduct targeted fundraisers, as these funds are often needed within hours. So please consider helping us maintain this emergency fund. We want to stress that literally any amount that you give allows us to respond more flexibly and effectively when disaster strikes. If you would like to join in our mission to support those in Myanmar who are being impacted by the military coup, we welcome your contribution, any form currency your transfer method, Your donation will go to support a wide range of humanitarian missions, aiding those local communities who need it most. Donations are directed to such causes as the Civil Disobedience movement CDM families of deceased victims, internally displaced person IDP camps, food for impoverished communities, military defection campaigns, undercover journalists, monasteries and nunneries education initiatives, the purchasing of protective equipment and medical supplies COVID relief and much more. We also make sure that our donation Fund supports a diverse range of religious and ethnic groups across the country. We invite you to visit our website to learn more about past projects as well as upcoming needs. You can give a general donation or earmark your contribution for a specific activity or project you would like to support. Perhaps even something you heard about in this very episode. All of this humanitarian aid work is carried out by our nonprofit mission better Burma. Any donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fund. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website better burma.org That's BETTRBURM a.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause, and both websites accept credit cards. You can also give via PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we take donations through Patreon Venmo GoFundMe and Cash App. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either the Insight Myanmar better Burma websites for specific links to those respective accounts or email us at info at better burma.org If you'd like to give In other way please contact us. Thank you so much for your kind consideration and support