Transcript: Episode #143: The Burma Act
Following is the full transcript for the interview with Michael Haack. 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.
00:14
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of HR 5497. The berm Act To Provide magazines. The civil society activists in Burma, imposed sanctions on the Burmese military for up ending years of progress, democracy and human rights are self serving an agenda of repression and violence.
Host 00:34
Before we get into today's show, I just want to add a quick reminder that any donation given to our nonprofit that or Burma will be shared directly with those in Myanmar who need it most. Any and all donations makes such a difference right now. Go to insight myanmar.org/donation If you would like to contribute, or stay tuned to the end of the episode to hear more options. With that, let's get on with the show.
01:07
Having visited Burma, I've seen the strength of its people as they've struggled to create and sustain democracy. And now on to the authoritarian mando. The divisions prejudice and violence have been exacerbated and progresses in reverse. The way that was
Brad 01:58
a good day. Yeah. Maybe that is. All right, welcome back. Today, we're going to be talking about the Burma Act, which very recently passed the US Congress, and I believe is still awaiting signature from President Biden. And we want to make sure that people know exactly what this is, we want to make sure that people know what it isn't. We want to contextualize what's going on to make sure that everyone's operating on clean informational slate, and I've got a very special guest today to discuss this. So Mike, if you could tell, tell our audience who you are and what you do.
Michael Haack 02:56
Sure, yeah. Thanks so much. I really appreciate this opportunity. So hello, everyone who's listening. My name is Mike and I got involved in Burma advocacy, about 20 years ago, when I was an undergraduate, worked for a few years at US campaign for Burma before the sort of openings doing Congress advocacy, advocacy around Congress in Burma. And, you know, for the 10 years of sort of opening or quasi opening, whatever you want to call that visited verb a lot, you know, stayed interested, but really wasn't working on it from an advocacy side until this coup happened. But basically, since the coup, I've been spending almost all of my energy trying to pass this thing called the Burma act. So I've been able to, you know, advocate about it and really hear about it, learn about it from lots of different angles, from the way the State Department is looking at it from the way that the Congress and the two different houses are looking at it. How it's viewed on the grassroots level. So yeah, I've I've been sort of Burma hacked all the time. 24 hours a day. So happy to be able to chat about it a little bit here on this podcast. So yeah, thanks for having me.
Brad 04:14
On, no worries, and we're very lucky to have you like someone who who has that special insider perspective on this. So let's then take advantage of that. And let's contextualize what it is that we're that we're talking about. So when when did the Burma act first get proposed to Congress? And what would the the initial hopes for it like? Well, what was it designed to achieve?
Michael Haack 04:42
Yeah, that is an excellent question. So um, you might know that the US Congress works in legislative cycles of two years. This Congress that we're just ending is the 117th Congress of the United States of America. We're about to enter the 118th Congress of the US. And so in the previous Congress, there actually was a Burma bill that was before the coup. That Burma Bill focused on limiting the power of the Burmese military and providing aid to certain civil society groups actually very similar to what this perm act focuses on. But it was it was around the Rohingya. It did have a lot of language around there, Hinga and other ethnic groups, and this sort of struggles with the Burma army. It was never passed, largely, because of the Mitch McConnell, who is close friends with Aung San su G, he didn't want big piece of legislation, kind of targeting the military, because of the way it treated the Rohingya passing simply because he thought it would reflect poorly on Dasu. So that is the sort of origins of this particular piece of legislation. However, after the coup, the Burma Act was really updated. And went through many, many different iterations before finally passing as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which is what just passed. And so this like kind of revamped version of the Burma act, that is really rewritten in order to take into account the post coup situation that was first introduced in October of last year to the US Congress. But it had been being drafted for much, much longer. And we really started talking about it almost immediately after the coup. So there's a lot of internal drafting then it was introduced to committee then to the floor of the House, the floor of the Senate are actually never reached before the Senate. But, um, anyway, so it's been a long time coming, I think, is the is the short answer. And the skeleton of it was the Rohingya genocide determination act. But it's a very different bill that ended up actually passing just, you know, the other day.
Brad 07:34
Okay, so you've you've opened up a lot of doors in a very short space of time, with different directions that we're going to investigate here. So first, let's look at the range of thing. So the United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a while back, officially on behalf of the United States recognized that the military's actions in Rakhine State constitute a genocide, which is not something that the US or the international community throws around likely is a very controversial word. We see the ongoing controversy with regard to for example, the Armenian genocide. And so that was quite a substantial step, I think on the part of the United States. Was that connected to the this ongoing bill?
Michael Haack 08:20
Yeah, so I believe it was. The bill would have forced the State Department which Blinken is the head of right, he's the Secretary of State to make a determination about whether or not the what happened in Rakhine State constituted a genocide, the end so I believe it did provide pressure. But it had not become law yet. So it didn't provide the legal basis. It didn't force him to do it. It wasn't a lot forcing Secretary Blinken to say that so often, people will introduce laws into the US Congress in order to simply provide pressure that they don't intend on actually passing. Because, you know, the State Department watches Congress very closely. Congress, basically, we say in the US, they have the purse strings. So they decide what federal agencies are funded and how they're funded. So the federal agencies watch Congress very closely. And if there's a bill that's gaining popularity, that says something like should the US recognize what happened in Rakhine State as a genocide that's going to push the State Department to look into that and actually make a decision. So at that time, the Burma ag did have a piece in it that asked for the State Department to make that determination. And it had already passed As the house at the time when they made that determination, but not the Senate yet. It provided pressure. But it did not legally force the State Department to make that decision.
Brad 10:11
Could it the other way? Because you said that McConnell was holding it up in the Senate, right. And yet, he didn't want since your because he was afraid of dogs who would be affected? Is it possible that the State Department was what came out and said, We're going to proactively declare this a genocide? Yeah. So that Mitch McConnell doesn't have that excuse to hold up this bill? Or is that unlikely?
Michael Haack 10:36
I wish the State Department was that concerned about passing the bill. I didn't, I didn't Don't didn't feel like I saw a ton of effort from the State Department to push this bill to get passed. So I do believe the pressure was going that way. But I think what you're right, you're right, that what that the knock on effect of that was that that probably helped McConnell come on board, right, because it was already determined to be a genocide. So that whole part of the bill, which was really like, I would say, one of the major aspects of the original bill, as it was introduced into the House and the Senate on October 5 of last year, once that was already taken care of, it was much easier to get Senator McConnell on board. So you're right. That was definitely an effect of it. Was the State Department that calculating? I wish but I kind of doubt it.
Brad 11:37
Okay, so that's, that's not how they operate this.
Michael Haack 11:41
Maybe sometimes, but definitely not on this bill. Okay.
Brad 11:45
So then let's let's sort of examined is because the internal politics may not be particularly relevant to the average Myanmar person, but they are still fascinating in and of their own right. And secondly, important to understand for people who are following the political process and are trying to develop a better understanding of how to actually get things done in foreign countries. So in the United States, correct me if I'm wrong, the bill first goes to committee of of Congress, and they have to approve it before it's even sent to the House of Representatives. Is that correct?
Michael Haack 12:25
Yeah. Okay. Excellent question. So yes, bills are first introduced into committees. They, this bill, the Burma Act, was introduced into two committees simultaneously, it was introduced into the House Foreign Relations Committee, and it was interred I'm sorry, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the equivalent committee in the Senate, which is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And it was introduced into both of those at the same time. And, yes, so those committees are members of Congress who are concerned about foreign affairs, they've been appointed by their party, to sit on that committee and make decisions about which laws related to foreign affairs are going to enter the floor of the Senate for a full vote. In order for them to leave the committee. There's also a vote. And so you need to because the Senate was 5050, in our last in the 117th. Congress of the United States of America, the you needed a Democrat and a Republican to agree in order to get a bill out of committee. And so that was part of our problem in the Senate. We had we in the house, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that the barber Bill was a good bill. We easily got it out of the house, foreign affairs committee. But in the Senate, and then kind of this is because of Mitch McConnell's sort of unique relationship to Myanmar. It's for those not from the US Mitch McConnell is the the head of the Republican Party in the Senate. Because of his unique relationship to Myanmar, he he didn't see it in the same way that the Republicans in the House of Representatives saw it. And so he he basically didn't greenlighted he didn't Greenlight his own party to let it leave the committee in the Senate so it actually never left committee in the Senate when it reached the floor of the House of Representatives. And just like for people listening we have we're not like the UK where we have like well, I guess you sorta are. We have two houses right? Like we have like the upper house and the lower house although they're supposed to be equal power. The House of Representatives is our is our big one raises 435 People It's so much more democratic institution than our Senate, which only has 100 people to from every state. And so in the really, really big house, the one with 435 people, which represents people by population, we really easily got it passed. It was I act. In fact, unanimous consent, it's one of the few people who follow us politics, you might know is very, very divided. So to have unanimous consent on a bill is is a really big deal. So that means they put it on the floor. They said, Does anyone oppose this? Nobody oppose that. Bam, if he comes a lot. We did that in the house that shows like real strong bipartisan agreement. But in the Senate, we were never able to do that. Not because Democrats and Republicans didn't agree, you know, as I met with office after office in the Senate, like I do think Democrats and Republicans largely saw and continue to see Burma through the same lens. It was really because of Senator McConnell, who really is like his verbal politics or just sort of like, very focused on on some CG, and very focused on what we might consider sort of like the NLD old guard or something. And so that, that because of that, McConnell has often referred to Burma as his pet issue, then because this is his pet issue, and other Republicans in the Senate would go against him. So it held up the law in the Senate for quite some time, actually. I mean, it just passed now. Right. And the coup is nearly two years ago.
Brad 16:42
But then what I'm just curious with, like, the political sort of behind the scenes stuff, why did they not hold it up in the house?
Michael Haack 16:53
Right, yeah. Because, um, so our politics and our political institutions are, are divided in many ways, right? You know, the American democracy. I think the the pillar of American democracy really is the separation of powers, right? Like the, if you look at the Federalist Papers, which are sort of like the political theory behind the US Constitution. One of the most famous quotes from that is that if men were angels, we'd have no need for government, but because they are not angels. We need the kind of government where one man's ambition serves to check a another man's ambition. And so the sort of, like balancing of different people's interests and ambitions is, I believe, the center of US government. And so you can you can really see this from like working on the hill, like the way that this is really instilled. Although, like, there are Republicans in the Senate and the Republicans in the House. They they do answer to different, you know, to a large degree, I would say different leadership so that the, the House leadership of the Republican Party did not agree with Mitch McConnell that the most important thing is on CNC G when you think about Burma, they, they thought about it, and then much more sort of, you know, the ethnic issues, the most recent coup, the uprising against the coup. That was the way that that group of people thought about it. In the Senate, I would say most Republicans also thought about it in terms of ethnic issues. Again, think about Myanmar, in terms of ethnic issues, in terms of, you know, the most recent coup, the uprising against it, and really kind of see on some CG as a back burner. But in the Senate, they they need Mitch McConnell to he's a leader of the Senate Republicans, so they, they need him for committee appointments. They need Him to help like sort of broker deals. And so going against him on something like Burma, which is one his patent issued to like very, very low priority for the United States, like it's they wouldn't, they wouldn't get anything out of kind of being a hero on this. And so they just, it was too much political capital to go against the leader in the Senate, or in the house you like didn't have that problem, right, because the Republican leadership agreed with Democratic leadership.
Brad 19:42
And I want to just just touch on that because it's very low priority for the United States is very low priority for the West. But there's a lot of contention about that statement, in the sense that it seems simultaneously that the There are positive pressures not to take action in Myanmar, partially because it's on China's doorstep. And simultaneously, very strong arguments to be made for why the West should be heavily invested, considering the United States is an ally of India, and a Chinese puppet state on India's eastern border, as well as Pakistan, a Chinese ally on the western border is definitely something that the Indians would be very concerned by having having a Chinese puppet within should say and other Chinese puppet within ASEAN is something ASEAN should be deeply concerned by having another dictatorship in ASEAN is something that I see I should be deeply concerned by, like, there are a lot of factors even before we get into the issues of resources. Jade is something that doesn't interest the West. China's very interested in that, but when we look at I think it was delirium. And, and, and other rare earth metal that's being mined in kitchen, which is of great value to a lot of industries that the West relies on a lot of electronics and technology industries, it seems as though they should be very good reason for Western powers to say we want Myanmar to be free and democratic. We want it to be open for business. We want access to the fossil fuels, we want access to the shipping lanes, we want access to just the resources in general and and demand power. And and we want a country that is a stable democracy in the region, to keep China at bay to keep our sound stable to keep India happy. Like, why why is this being viewed as so low priority? Do you think?
Michael Haack 21:43
Yeah, that's a great question. And so somebody like who within the US government once told me it was medium priority? So I think we can say medium priority. That's that's probably that's probably the right the right framing. Although I did say, though, I would say, you know, US government is not a unitary entity, right. And so you want to think about the different pieces of it slightly differently. So what do members of Congress and Senators, what do they care about? They mostly care about winning elections and keeping power, which is like, again, not a bad thing, like the center of us. Democracy is this idea of, you know, balancing different interests. So they're there to balance the interests within their state, right. Mitch McConnell is not in the Senate to represent Burma, he's in the Senate to recognize that Kentucky. And so, you know, the priority of of, you know, the the Congress exists to govern the United States. So the fact that the US like happened to end up like a sort of world power was by accident, it wasn't something that was imagined by the early colonists who designed the United States. And so, you know, that's one thing to keep in mind. So the way that the Congress thinks about Burma is a very moralistic way, actually, they used to really see it as like, Okay, this was a place where the US could do some good we could restore democracy to this place, we have this horrifying government, and this like wonderful, like angelic woman who's fighting against that horrifying dictatorship. And you know, it's just sort of a moral crusade to help her come to power. But if you read Dave Steinberg's book, he says that onslaught, CGS name was actually said on the floor of Congress more than Osama bin Laden's name for a certain kind of some years in the early 2000s, which is really quite shocking, because he was obviously a center of our foreign policy for a very long time. And, but this sort of moral crusade, like played really well. And it was, you know, and it played well with voters, right, to the extent that voters even cared like it was like, you know, you could have all kinds of different constituencies, supporting right, like Christians like that, because of the persecution of Christians. You know, the democracy people liked it. Sort of like, you know, women's rights groups, like did the, you know, sort of people who, you know, like, you know, sort of ethnic minorities like non white people like then the importance of like, sort of elevating people like that as heroes like that. So it was it really like, for a long time, like Congress had this very moralistic way of looking at Burma. And then once you know, once Burma got democracy or quasi democracy or whatever you want to call it? It still did. Definitely stay in that moralistic category, you know, like they. It then there are hingga became the next kind of moralistic crusade. The State Department is very different, though, right, like the State Department is. Its practical, right. And so the State Department and the administration are going to be more looking out for things like US interests, like what you're talking about. In the Congress, to the extent that interests are represented from Burma, it's really Chevron, like if you look at the Burma act that passed, it literally has a piece that says before, 90, like any company that had an investment in Burma before 1997, like is exempt to certain parts of the Burma act. That is that Chevron's the only company that that fits that description. By the way, it is in there. Yeah, it's in the final the final version that passed I remember even
Brad 26:11
last year they were they were very hesitant to lay any sanctions on mo G. Right Mo and gas enterprise. And and Chevron pulled out of the country as the toto has did Woodside or they did not. So Chevron
Michael Haack 26:25
pledged to pull out of the country ship Chevron continues to operate. In the country, they they continue to own shares in the Donna gas project. They've never divested. So totaal did. But Chevron, Chevron still there. They have pledged to leave my cynical view as they will leave once there is no more gas and oil to be taken out of the ground. Which I hear there's maybe like, like a year left. So yeah, no, it was it was totally just sort of window dressing. Oh, wow.
Brad 27:02
So they still they're still receiving sort of legislative exemption from the Congress. Yes. Wow. That's incredible.
Michael Haack 27:12
Yeah, cuz, again, the Congress exists to represent us interests. And the US, largely like, like living here in DC really see this, like the, the the industry's like, just have a huge influence on US foreign policy, like we had to get, you know, the senator from Wyoming, you know, somewhat on board because he's on Foreign Relations. Those of you who know us geography, like Wyoming is the smallest state by population, it's in the middle of the country. You might wonder like, what does this have to do with foreign affairs? The senator for Wyoming wants to be on Foreign Relations so that he can export all this beef. And I'm sure, like, if you look at everything it does, it's it's all about exporting beef, you know, like, it's all over his Twitter and stuff. So, you know, I mean, it it, like looking like, and I know, this is like seems maybe far flung from Burma. But like, when you want to understand how the US behaves, you have to understand, like all the different pieces that sort of constitute us policymaking. And the absolute number one priority is the promotion of the interests of US businesses abroad. Like the second priority is like us, you know, geostrategic importance, you know, and that's what you were talking about right with. When again, like, that's not necessarily on the minds of all senators, like the senators like to bash China, but it's basically because it gets some votes here in the US. Like how strategically they're thinking about us relationships with China. That's really like the administration's job. However, you're right. There's there's a lot of sort of geostrategic arguments you could make about why the US should not should do everything it can to get the junta out of power and get the democratic forces into power. The there's a number of barriers so that the US cares a lot more about its relationship to Thailand, and then it does its relationship to Burma. Thailand is a treaty ally. There's US bases in Thailand. The US military and the Thai military have pretty close ties. And Thailand has been telling us to basically like chill out. So that's one reason. And Kurt Campbell, who's like sort of the who's the Asians are in the administration. You know, if you read his is his writing on US policy, it's all about how he thinks Thailand is centered to the Indo Pacific strategy. Turret Campbell, like between when he worked in the Obama administration, and when he worked in the, in this administration, the Biden administration opened this consultancy group called the Asia group that has, you know, financial interests all over Asia. He had to leave that in order to be in the administration. But, you know, the way Washington works, it's a revolving door. So the second he leaves the Biden administration, he'll be back heading this like investment. Well, this like strategic research sort of investment group for companies and you know, they have their clients or people like Facebook, you know, people who have a lot of interest in not being, you know, too critical, right. deflecto Verma, you know, because Facebook's in all this trouble for for their role in the Rohingya crisis, right, like, and maybe Kurt Campbell is a very ethical guy, and he can like, not think about how it's like completely against his financial interest to, you know, put I doubt it, right. I mean, it's like, you know, the water that these, the really high level, like administrators, women is, you know, definitely like thinking about, like US financial interests over anything else. So, and Thailand is just like a much more stable, you know, financial partner, as well as a military partner. So they're going to have a big influence on US policy in the region. I think they'll also another reason is there's there's just a lot of cynicism and caution about the ability of the you know, the the opposition forces to actually beat the junta and gain power. And, like, exactly, what would that power look like? Right, like, there's sort of like a fool me once attitude that you see with a lot of administrators, you know, where there's so much hope around the SU and then LD, but then you, you know, you had a genocide. So, you know, you've got all those different factors going on, combined with the fact that there is sort of like a present test or like a, you know, a bias for the way things are like the State Department's of bureaucracy like, like any other end, it's it's not really gonna go out on a limb on much at the Congress is really there to go out on a limb there, the more moralistic actors. But yeah, again, Congress got stuck in this weird kind of like, in between, again, because Burma's Mitch McConnell's like pet project. Sorry, I know there's a lot of different directions, but that just trying to be as thorough as possible.
Brad 33:10
I mean, the more information we have the better to be honest, it's a very long and very confusing road. Today, we are so good to cover it. And one thing that is kind of important. And this is something that I was discussing with a with an analyst, quite recently, with regard to the passage of this bill, was that originally, there were some people who were pushing very hard for this to be an independent piece of legislation. Yeah, as it stands, it's been incorporated within the NDAA. So right, for the benefit of those who haven't had to slog through the NDA for the last year. Could you explain what that is?
Michael Haack 33:52
That is an excellent question. So I would first say that it did Pat, the Burma Act passed as an independent piece of legislation through the US House of Representatives. But we were not able to get it to pass as an independent legislation through the Senate. This actually, unfortunately, is very typical of bills these days, the Senate is in such deadlock, because it's 50%, one party 50% the other party, they don't agree on all that much. And so, you know, again, thinking about this, like not necessarily in the context of Burma, but just in the context of US politics is very hard to get something through the Senate these days. But, you know, the US government has to function, right like the like the House and the Senate have to, for example, pass a budget every year. And there's certain bills that have to pass every year in order for the US to function, or at least they're perceived as needing to pass In order for the US to function, the National Defense Authorization Act is one of those bills it has passed. There is a National Defense Authorization Act that has passed both houses of the US Congress and been signed by the president every single year since 1961. And what the bill does is it authorizes spending on the US military. And as you might imagine, the parties don't agree on much, but they do agree that we should have a massive military and that it should be well funded. And so everybody knows that this bill is going to pass every year. And so every buddy in the Congress tries to get lots of other bills shoved into it. So that they pass to the bill this year was literally 4000 pages long. The Burma act that ended up in the bill was about 25 pages. And yeah, it authorizes spending on the US military, a lot of people might get excited and say, Oh, wow, does this mean the US is going to spend, you know, give military aid to Myanmar. I know they're not to the junta, obviously, but to the opposition forces. And it's true, the bill does mention that and Yugi mentions Ayios, it mentions, you know, plenty of organizations that have armed wings. But But just because this is in the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes spending on the US military, it does not mean there will be any military aid. In fact, it's very specific in the bill that only non lethal aid will be provided. And, you know, to the extent that the US has funded the N ug, it's a very small, like administrative things here and there like through the N Ed. The reason it's in the National Defense Authorization Act is simply that that is the only way to get things passed through our incredibly deadlocked Congress.
Brad 37:07
And so let's, let's just linger a little bit, because the bill currently was mentioned by name, the national unity government, the PDFs of the people's defense forces, which are interesting iOS organizations. And what's fascinating about this, I think most of the audience is aware of the context, but just just in case, this reaches your audience, to the PDF CEOs, armed organizations who are openly in conflict, usually openly in conflict with the military, there are armed ethnic organizations, which are not in conflict with the military that have treaties. But the majority are an armed conflict with the military. And these are not recognized internationally as as lawful, or as representing state entity. So by many, many definitions, they could be considered criminal, armed organizations. And yet, this version of the Bowmanville specifically mentions them and the versions of the Burma bill that were going around last year, specifically mentioned the Commodore, the Burmese military for since your end sanction, but did not actually mention the new GE did not actually mention the iOS in the PDF. What happened in the last year to bring about that change?
Michael Haack 38:25
That's a great question. I think that was a lot of lobbying from diaspora groups. The group that has been so effective in lobbying has been the chin refugees here in the US. I think that they have a few things going for them. One is the chin refugees tend to live in Republican states. And the Republicans were able to have a lot of influence over the Burma bill, partly because they were stalling on it. Right. So like, if you stall on a bill like in the Senate, it was introduced by Democrat Ben Cardin. And so then the Republicans sort of, you know, were able to push back, you know, we won't, we won't let it leave committee unless you do this, this and that. And the, you know, they're Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, all states with lots of chin refugees in them are both Florida less so but but Ford has a lot of Burmese refugees in general. And they are and that, yeah, and they're all Republicans who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. There's eight Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee. And the those are some key states with senators from the Foreign Relations Committee. I think the reason like chin, to chin, Qur'an are able to have the kind of influence that they have is because They are Baptist. And the Baptist Church has a lot of influence over US policy. It's a very big religion here in the United States, especially in Republican states. And so, you know, they're able to sort of integrate into those networks. And, you know, the American Baptists sort of lobbying weighing took on the Vermont act as one of their priorities. And, and made recommendations about the language change. I think that was a key factor. I mean, I think also, like other factors, just being sort of, you know, the, the US agencies that, you know, operate on the borders and stuff, you know, hearing more and more that that is the way to get aid in these days. But I would really, like, you know, emphasize that, that any aid that and first of all, simply then being named in the Burma act, doesn't mean that they actually are going to get aid, the there's a whole nother process of allocation that has to happen next. This authorizes the spending, the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes the spending of things, and then there's a whole nother appropriations process. That, you know, we're gearing up to try and influence that would actually appropriate the money. And then the federal agencies also have a lot of say about how they appropriate the money that's given to them that they're supposed to spend on Burma. So there's a lot of difference steps. And I mean, to be totally honest, even like best case scenario, not all that much money, or training is going to reach these groups. You know, but it is significant, like you're saying it's politically significant that the US is recognizing that, I mean, money and training will reach some of the groups that is significant. The I think providing humanitarian aid across border, even though the US has a history of doing that, especially across Taiwan reporter, like is is still a risky thing to do. And it still is significant that the US is willing to do that. And so, yeah, I think it's mostly a reflection of American politics and where people from Burma live in the US, and then a little bit of a reflection of the sort of federal agencies learning more about what's happening on the ground.
Brad 42:33
Okay. Okay, so then, let's, let's look to the future, because then this has been a very, very long time coming. It's gone through a lot of changes. It's done a lot of things. So unfortunately, there's already going to be widespread misinformation about, as you say, this prediction that oh, it means the US military is going to come in or the US military is going to start giving lethal aid. So what can happen? And these are two different things. What is your bill allowed to happen? Yeah, and what is likely to happen?
Michael Haack 43:05
Yeah, I mean, the bill authorizes a lot it in a lot of things that that sort of movement has been asking for the original Burma act that Pat, well, the so many copies of the Wehrmacht, but the strongest version of the Burma act that was ever passed the body. In the US Congress, was the version that was in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act. We ended up the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, basically, is what ended up becoming law. So the, but that one had emoji II as mandatory sanctions. This one has it only as discretionary. So it opens the door for more advocacy around that. I think the biggest hold up on that it's actually again, Thailand. It's GOP political thing. But but it it's it's great that they actually named emoji. I know, Chevron did not want that. And there was a lot of lobbying to get that in there. So and we were surprised to see it in there. To be honest, when it when it got to the final version, so that was a pleasant surprise. So from an advocacy point of view, that is, you know, an important thing to emphasize. There is a somewhat extensive, you know, sort of sanctions section. It's, it calls for the sanctioning of senior members of the sack, which the US has already done, but I do think this provides pressure on the Treasury and the State Department to do I expand that list of people and and expand ways that that they sort of limit the money going to the SEC. And so the the sort of first few bullets of the section section, you know, the the mandatory sanctions, and then there's a number of discretionary sanctions. The mandatory sanctions basically take a lot of things that the Biden administration already did and like codify them and provides more pressure to, to an expanded list basically, of people from the senior positions in the SEC. That that is significant, because it does provide pressure on the federal agencies, again, like State Department and Treasury, who are the two agencies involved in sanctioning their funding is reliant on Congress. So we look very closely at Congress's guidance.
Brad 48:28
I mean, let's let's, let's look at this, because this is sort of what this bill does is it just opens the door. But it doesn't actually guarantee doesn't make promises. And this is something that we saw last year, with the NDAA when a lot of money was made available to Myanmar. And what people thought was that this means the US Congress is going to start delivering lump sum payments to Burmese civil society organizations, or PDF or the N ug, when in reality, what it meant was, the US is giving money from the Federal coffer to organizations that are also US government organizations like USA ID to dedicate to Burmese assistance, but not necessarily handing over cash, just providing assistance. So what is like these are two very different things and people often conflate them. So with regards to this, is there any likelihood that because you said they have money, or even if they had money, they wouldn't know where to spend it? Is there any likelihood of a partnership with any of these organizations? Most crucially, I think the national unity government, it has, I think the greatest case for legitimacy of any of the actors. Is there any possibility for the US government, partnering with the NUJ not necessarily to hand over cash but to at the very least say, direct us to where we need to send our assistance and we will target those those projects is that viable? Oh,
Michael Haack 50:01
I mean, I think that is an excellent role for the N ug to play. And so the national unity government actually just opened an office here in DC. And the one of the groups of people who are present was the the National Endowment for Democracy who funds a lot of things on the border. And as you know, you know, working with the N ug here, and in that sense, like there is a degree of at least conversation about direction for spending to go, I think, to some degree that's on the N ug, like the MDG needs to come up with like clear plans about like, Okay, if we had this much money, this is how we would spend it. And make that that case, compellingly to the the allocation, and I'm sorry, the appropriations committees, in both houses. The most important important appropriations committee for this Congress, I've heard is the House Appropriations Committee. So it's Barbara, we have San Francisco, there's lots of Burmese people live in San Francisco. So I've been reaching out to them to reach out to Barbara Lee with some success. But yeah, I mean, there's, there's definitely a possibility for that. And by that, I mean, like the energy working with us to, to at least direct funds, to a very small degree that is already happening. It's really just about amping that up. And and I think to some degree, that the energy's got to kind of increase their advocacy around that, to get that down, which they are already doing. But, you know, they have a lot on their plate, I mean, the primary thing, you know, the energy does in the States is like, fundraise for the revolution. And, you know, those fundings come from, like, you know, particular sort of power centers of the diaspora. And, and they don't necessarily have a strong understanding about how to influence us policy. But they're getting there.
Brad 52:29
I mean, this is this is just, it's a recurring theme that we've dealt with. Sometimes one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Sometimes one hand doesn't know that the other exists, right. And this seems consistent, where there are so many cases where you have people who are in a position to say, I have the capacity to provide assistance, and you have other people saying, I desperately need assistance. But these two people don't know each other, they're not communicating. So is there anything we can do because the US system the US bureaucracy, is intense like it is, it is imposing to say the least, and again, for a country of 320 something million people, you would expect the bureaucracy and the system to be large and robust, it has to be, and it can't be too hasty, because there are a lot of different ways that mistakes can happen and people can be left behind. So it's very much the US has credit that it considers things carefully before it takes action. However, is there a specific way in which we can try to cut through these delays and reach key people or make are as as pro democracy activists and the NUJ in the PDF and emails make the potential for collaboration and the willingness to collaborate on non lethal projects known to the administration?
Michael Haack 53:52
Yeah, so I think there's two tracks to that. One track I would call sort of the rational track where like, I think that, you know, people who support the democracy movement in Burma around the world can help to make the argument to State Department that there's all the and other federal agencies, that there's all these different ways that money could be spent to, you know, to the good of the Burmese people. And I think that like helping people like that new G write proposals, people like arrows, etc. I think that like, there's a lot of like, sort of just like, I don't use the word translation that needs to happen where you have this sort of like situation in Burma that people understand the situation on Burma and then like having that carefully explained to, you know, different levels of the US bureaucracy, as you identify like, that is important that will get results the more those those voices are clarified. I think another way that this needs to be attacked and and should be and can be attacked is like a broader narrative congregation, you know, through the media really, you know, on some CG in so many ways, just like a flood character. However, like her story, and the compelling this of that really did drive us policy for two decades. Again, because like people don't have a big you know, they don't have that much space for understanding Burma they have like they can, if you're if you're on the Foreign Relations Committee of you know, the US Senate, like, there's what, like 193 countries in the world, like the US is involved in literally all of them in one way or another, like the dollar, there's so many ways the US is involved globally. And so, you know, it's not realistic to think that Burma is going to be a top priority. But you can control like, to what extent, you know, what is the narrative if you only have space in your brain for a little bit about Burma? I don't think we can just quite go back to the old narrative, which again, did drive us policy, but having more narratives about the uprising about the hope and the resistance, like, stuff like that, I think, would be helpful. Because it would like, you know, when you walk into that meeting, then with the with the senators office or something, they'd be like, Okay, this is a place where people are resisting military rule. And that's what they're going to ask for. Instead of right now, I think people's understanding is this very muddy, they're like, oh, yeah, there's like some ethnic problems there. And I remember there's an uprising, but I don't really know what's happening with that, because it's only really covered by the global media for like two months. So like, I and so I don't know I like personally, I'm trying to think about ways to like re approach, like the guy who made the onsen CG poster that, you know, we did approach him right after the coup happened. And he was gonna make another poster for Angel, you know, the 18 year old who was killed in Mandalay, but then angels family didn't want him to do that. And so then we didn't end up making a poster. But like doing something like that, because like, once you have that, then you have like a new story. And then you can go to the storytellers like Hollywood to like, tell the story. And you know, that that does matter, like narrative drives policy, and like I just see, both in like the sort of educated us population, and then those are the people who like staff, you know, Senate offices like that there just isn't a clear narrative about what's happening. And there isn't time or patience to understand like a complex narrative. And so things just really just don't move.
Brad 58:08
And it's, I mean, I'm glad you, you mentioned narrative, I personally, am a big fan of the concept of narrative and the importance of narrative. Because, you know, it's occurred to me as it's occurred to many people, even if you're telling someone a thing that happened to thing that you saw, you tell it as a narrative, when you explain history, we tell it as a story, as her as almost like a children's bedtime story, skipping over a lot of nuance. And everything that we know, every understanding that we have are things that have happened or that are happening or the way we imagine the future is in this narrative format. So the way that the story is controlled is important. And you brought up Angel and Jason, and she, she I think, is a very good example. Because I was confused. Initial, my own suggestion for those who are not following I believe it was the third of March crackdowns. 2021. And she was 19 years old. She's from Mandalay. I think she was a taekwondo black belt as well. And she was at the protests and she was shot in the head by a sniper, and she died. Now she was buried reasonably quickly. And she she was killed on the Wednesday she was buried on the Thursday. And what was really strange to me was that on the Friday, the military broke into the cemetery, forcibly exhumed her body, removed the bullet fragment, and then re buried her body under concrete, which they poured and they desecrated her her burial in the process. And they went on the six o'clock news to claim that they'd remove these bullet fragments and they have determined that the military were not responsible for shooting Angel. And this was this was really traumatic and horrific as you can imagine, particularly for her father, who was the one pressured by the military Very likely at gunpoint to give them permission to go in and exhume her body until it was explained to me much later that the reason this happened was because Jason was ethnic Chinese. And her death blew up on WeChat or other communication in China, and it caused a phenomenal public outcry. And that's why the military was so pressured to take extraordinary action to try and shift the blame away from themselves. So it really goes to show how narrative in one country can drive immediate response within Myanmar were from the military themselves, when they start seeing the floorboards cracking under their feet. So I think it is incredibly powerful. But then the question becomes, can we get people to listen like this is a moralistic usually the United States, you mentioned the chin or Baptist. persecution of Christians is a not to be too cynical, but a favorite tagline, particularly among Republicans, they love this idea of Christian persecution, come to Myanmar, there is legitimate decades long, possibly even centuries long persecution of Christian minorities in in Korean Karenina, and change and kitchen, all these places. We want to talk about defending democratic values. This is a country that came out of a dictatorship to a to a full democracy, that then slightly strengthened in 2015. That was then further reaffirmed in 2020 general elections, this was a country that was experiencing a capitalist economic boom, external investment in improvements in quality of life and freedoms. This is something worth defending, if you are a Western country that that continues to go on about the values of freedom and democracy and an open market. Why is this narrative not taking root? Among particularly conservative American policymakers or establishment figures? It seems like this is all of their buzzwords in one.
Michael Haack 1:02:12
Yeah, so I think a few things I mean, one is like, and obviously working in advocacy. So this is my belief of why it's useful, like, partly is it's simply the work hasn't been done like the like building. Like, although the Baptist churches, like have done some really cool things, including having like, at least in the Qin churches, they literally played videos about how to lobby your member of Congress about the Burma act. That was amazing. And again, like it yeah, the American Baptists, their, their, their lobbying crew did take on this issue, which was also amazing. But, um, you know, and so the work is being done, but there's a lot more work to be done. And I think that that, you know, the right vision and commitment, you really couldn't make it much more of an issue among those groups. You know, I think that there is ways to re engage the sort of, I guess, you could say, the Democratic side, the blue seats, like through something like that guy who made the poster Han Soo Ji, he's the guy who made the Obama poster he's like, very, like, seen as sort of like an intellectual artists like leader within the sort of, like, mainstream Democratic establishment. And so, you know, if we could find a nice narrative for him to do, like, you know, because Angel's parents said that we couldn't use her, like, we'd have to use something else. But we can kind of figure that out there. We get a lot of currency from that, I believe. I mean, part of the reason, though, that the narrative is muddied, is, is simply there Hinga genocide, I mean, like the, you know, 2000 So you're right, like the US, the US Obama administration, really tried to spin like the democratization of Burma is this huge success of US policy. But then, like, post 2017, like, it just all became very confusing, you know, like, like, oh, is this a success? Like, I mean, I think that the Ethno nationalism was always there, right. I mean, like, if you read like Batman, whose book about, you know, his most recent one, he talks about on some CGS essays at Oxford, where she really talks about like, the Chinese and the and the, the, where they did like the South Asian immigrants and how they were sort of like, you know, tools of imperialism, and I don't think she uses outward, but like, it's kind of the way according Fatman, who that she frames them. And so, you know, this sort of like, like, sort of ethno nationalist like, strand it's always been there, but it was never the front of us, thinking about Burma until 2017. And then it became impossible to ignore and then crashing into about Burma chauvinism and all that became like, center stage. And the fact that the minorities like, you know, do you have a lot of their have more access to influence of the US government than the sort of like, you know, Burma nationalists that live mostly on the coast. And I, it just it unfortunately creates sort of a confused narrative. Because, I mean, yes, like the, you know, different sort of, you know, non Vermont groups are struggling for democracy. But then, you know, when you press them, like, what did they mean by democracy? They mean, like, current people controlling current land, like people controlling Qin land, kitchen, people controlling kitchen land, you know, that's not democracy is just another kind of ethno nationalism, you know, so then it's like, I mean, the, the narrative just comes becomes confused very quickly. And, and then it's like, okay, now you don't have the moral impetus anymore. And so then it's like, okay, well, what do we got it, you got the geostrategic argument, but then it's like, okay, I'd be betting on a winning horse. So then that's a hard thing to prove. Because you have to prove the future and like, it, that's very good, so muddy, but I do, like, that's the negative side, right? The positive side is like I think it it is actually being getting to coalesce, like, I think people are, again, seeing Burma as a struggle against a military dictatorship. There's so much conversation about, you know, the cooperation between the different ethnic groups and PDFs, and the, you know, just different many different forces that are fighting the regime right now. And that is beginning to get her more and more at the highest levels. And I do think it's, it's a reflection of things on the ground. And I do think, like, a more positive narrative, a more sort of, like, you know, you know, anti coup narrative, is, is beginning to coalesce. And you see that in the Burma Act, as you were saying, like, the EA, the Oros, the, the N ug, and, and CDM. And other groups are, like, named in the Verma act as the group that the US the groups that the US is allied with, you know, what does that mean, materially, like, that's, you know, where a lot of pushing has to happen. But I do think that new narrative is, is is coalescing.
Brad 1:07:38
Okay. I mean, it's, it's heartening. But it's just very difficult to get that message through. And, and unfortunately, you know, a lot of the press or the a lot of that sort of pressure is coming from the diaspora community, which is great. It's wonderful that they've continued to be connected. And when you look at the collective millions of dollars that the Aspera communities have raised, especially when you consider the reality for migrant families, worse for refugee families, but migrant families in general often have to restart life from scratch, no equity, no reputation, no nothing. They tend to stay in poorest situations for a generation, at least, the economic outpouring that's coming from the diaspora community has been absolutely mind blowing and overwhelming. Which is, which is very heartwarming. But the problem is that ethnic minority groups often don't have a huge amount of pull with media groups, especially with mainstream media groups. As a particularly if they speak a minority language, which which obviously the Myanmar community often do. So is there a way that we can sort of get media organizations to be more enticed by the story because politicians do seem to respond to mainstream media? They don't like to be embarrassed in the mainstream media and be painted as inactive on a on a very important humanitarian front. But the mainstream media don't seem to be interested in this. Is there any way that we can change that?
Michael Haack 1:09:12
Yeah, I mean, there's all sorts of ways. I mean, one is the we had a US Advocacy Coalition for Myanmar had op eds, and the and they're written by sort of local people. In the biggest paper in Indiana, the biggest paper in Kentucky, the biggest paper in Pennsylvania, and I'm sorry, we tried to do that we hadn't didn't succeed yet. But Florida anyway, that these these places where we're trying to influence the policymakers, and indeed whenever we had a an op ed like the the office of the senator responded almost immediately and reached out to the person who wrote it and stuff like that, and it that does get their attention. And so So part of it is like, I think you're right, we want that big national story, but, but really, when you're dealing with Congress, like all politics is local and getting an op ed and like, in even the major paper, it was like the Miami Herald for Florida, which is a major US paper is, is, it's somewhat, it's doable, you know, like, and it's the kind of thing that that with a little help, like, you know, a recent immigrants to the US should be able to do, and they do want to hear from people in their states for those papers. So, that's one way to do it. You know, another way is, is making alliances with more powerful groups, right? Like, the fact is, so I know, that's an example I keep going to you, but that's the one that's been, I would say, absolutely the most successful, but, you know, there there, there's plenty other groups, the Muslim associations here in the US are very concerned about their Hanga. And, and they, it does matter when we're Hinga that kind of reach out to the broader Muslim community. That that is also helpful. You know, the Buddhism as well, especially on the coast, and you see that a little bit, too. You know, all that works, you know, just pitching bigger stories to the media, I think, I honestly think like Hollywood could get involved like they did before, although I know some people cringe when you say that, but it does help with storytelling, you know, I don't know. I'm just here for what's practical. So I think that's very possible, you know, like, previously, like, you had like Bondo and stuff, like talking about it. And yeah, then maybe we can generally think about that, but it did help, you know, it did help create the narrative. So, you know, I do think stuff like that is still available to us. We just have to, you know, be a little bit more sleuthy about how we go about it. You know? Yeah. So there's just a lot of different ways that that, that that problem can be overcome, like you're talking about, like the diaspora in in specific, like, you know, it there's such a, it's such a broad range of different folks. You know, some of the Diaspora most almost all the diaspora was pro Burma act, and lots and lots of people came out and worked for it, but some of the more like, it's sort of ethno nationalist. Like, we're, we're opposed to it. For the same reason. McConnell was opposed to it, because it mentioned there a hanger. And then the final version of the Burma hack doesn't mention the Rohingya like McConnell effectively took them out, erase them from it. Partly, maybe you could argue, like you said, because the genocide was already, you know, determined as a genocide. But I think also partly because, like, you know, we just like a lot of the Burmese diaspora, just like, refuse to allow for that word to be, you know, either the word or they didn't want it to be referred to as an ethnicity. And then they always say, Oh, it's just a translation issue. I don't know. So, I mean, there is a lot of of that. And so, you know, it's just hard. I mean, it's, it's that, like, to some degree like that, of course, the diaspora has a very special role in creating Burma policy. But I do think that Burma policy has to be driven one by more of it just for practical considerations, right. Like you said, there's like 320 million Americans, there's maybe 300,000 People from Burma living in America. So it's not really enough to drive policy. And then second, you know, just for like, Justice reasons, I mean, like it, it should be a human rights driven policy, it should be a democracy driven policy, it should be like, a policy that thinks about, like, general welfare of people and the, you know, all those things like that. And, you know, that, that those should sort of be the pillars of US policy toward Myanmar. And it shouldn't be that because that's like the right thing to do. More than just like who's saying what, when, but yeah, how does sort of get to that and you just want to think about like, who influences who where does power lie in the United States? You know, the, yeah, go ahead.
Brad 1:14:51
Yeah. So it was just the thing that I want to lead on to from here is the other the the obvious question of Other than how can we capitalize on this piece of legislation and get the system and the establishment to actually manifest things? Is there a possibility for further legislation as well? Or is the Burma bill going to be seen by Congress as sort of, well, this is it like this, we've done the thing. We only have one dance move. That's it? Or can we continue and get more through Congress?
Michael Haack 1:15:28
Absolutely. region continue. I got a bunch of different thoughts on this. So one is like, you know, Congress, like they're they, they run on campaigns, they run, they run on winning campaigns, you know, like, the last thing, Congress, the last thing that's good in Congress is to lose a fight, right? They don't want to be on the side of the loser. They they like getting reelected, and campaigns is like in their blood. So the fact that we won is so important, like, it creates momentum, it means that we're like the kind of people you want to hang out with, because we fucking win. Like the that. So that is very, very important to like, the I let you know, I would say that, like, legislation exists for all kinds of reasons. And as I've seen with this Burma act, like different pieces of legislation get cannibalized and like, you know, ended up passing as other pieces of legislation all the time. So simply getting a few bills on the floor, asking for stuff we want can be very important, and it can pressure the State Department, it can like end up in another bill at some time. You know, if you look at the amount of bills that are in the Congress at any one time, it's it's a staggering amount, you know, in the 1000s. And then people might say, oh, that's kind of silly, but you know, those bills, get get taken apart and reassembled and all this kind of stuff. So definitely important. I think that, you know, the end, there's a lot that Congress can do that isn't simply laws, like we can, you know, have top Democrats write letters to the Biden administration, which matters because the Biden administration is going to care what the leaders of its own party once. But yeah, I think there's a lot more that we can do with legislation, especially now that we've established ourselves as like, savvy enough to like, fight this fight for two years. I mean, a lot of people thought this was never gonna pass. You know, I heard that constantly, like, from human rights advocates from particularly from Vermont nationalists, like, lots and lots of people are like, why are you wasting your time, this is never gonna pass. And it did pass. And it did pass because we had a pretty, I think, realistic understanding of where power lies in the United States. And we went to groups like the Baptists, because they had power, you know, like, and, and they flex that power, and we won. And so, yeah, this is only good. Like, if it didn't pass, like we would be starting in January, like trying to pass the Burma bill again. Now that had passed, like, there's so much more we can do.
Brad 1:18:27
Well, okay, and so those, so those additional pieces of legislation, could sort of combined with this and could help us to drive the types of outcomes. Like, I'm not phrasing this. Well. The Burma Bill opened a lot of doors, it definitely doesn't guarantee anything. So couldn't use those additional pieces of legislation to guarantee some of those doors are actually crossed. Yeah,
Michael Haack 1:18:52
absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Because he because one thing like to keep in mind is like, you know, at the end of the day, these laws are written by people, right. And like the people who wrote the Burma act and worked on the Burma act, you know, within the Congress, not, you know, people like me, because it wasn't the only thing on their plate, right. But it was one thing on their plate that turned out well, like past like they, they won that fight. And so now the next time we contact them, they're going to be that much more willing to kind of work on the next thing. So they had a good experience with it. So yeah, absolutely. I mean, I can imagine like another bill that, you know, you know, let's say that emoji sanctions is the is a want, like, you know, has it in the mandatory category or, you know, I hope that at some point we we pass something with a much larger number on it for how much we want spent on Burma. That's it. The Republicans have really pushed back against that. But it doesn't mean it's impossible. I mean, now that Democrats will have 51 people in the Senate instead of 50. Like that means the committee's are no longer a 5050 split. That means a log jam isn't going to be as bad like, we completely have they're supporting the Republicans in the House. So yeah, no, I think it actually opens a lot of possibilities. And it's also again, because a lot of these legislators now had a good experience with the Burma act. If we want Gregory Meeks to make a statement about something that happened in Burma, you know, it's it's easy. It'll be easier now. Like, if we want to talk to the administration about it. Again, it's an easier ask because it, it makes that channel between sort of us advocating around it, and the members of Congress like that much more strong.
Brad 1:20:48
And so I do want to touch on that the description of the Congress itself. So America obviously has elections every two years, the recently with an election. Finally, did the Georgia seat finally get settled? By the way? Yeah,
Michael Haack 1:21:05
the charges here went to a Democrat. Yeah.
Brad 1:21:07
Okay. Well, that was impressive. So. So that being the case, so you say it's 51? So is it is it 5149? And the Senate?
Michael Haack 1:21:17
Yeah. 5149. Yeah. Okay, so
Brad 1:21:19
do do the senators. Generally vote as a bloc? I'm speaking from the Australian.
Michael Haack 1:21:25
Absolutely. I know where it's gonna walk here. That yeah, that that used to be our politics like 30 years ago, but yeah, they they votes are, are largely partisan these days. Yeah.
Brad 1:21:39
Okay, so we could so who's so is Chuck Schumer still the Senate Leader? Exactly. So if Chuck Schumer were to put his name behind piece of legislation, that would largely guarantee that all 51 of the Democratic senators would vote to pass it through the Senate?
Michael Haack 1:21:59
Yeah, it would mean it would be very likely that they would, yeah, cuz they, because they would want favors with the leader.
Brad 1:22:05
Okay. And so let's talk about the lower house. My understanding is the Republicans have more seats in the lower house. That's correct. Yeah. Is that going to be prom? Because obviously, legislation has to pass both houses? Do we have to wait for another NDAA to get something passed? Or can we actually win the lower house?
Michael Haack 1:22:24
Yeah, um, so the lower house i that the bill was actually completely bipartisan in the lower house we had. That was introduced, with both Democrats and Republicans as the leaders. And even better than that, we had the Democratic Leader of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as the lead. And the CO lead was the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is the highest ranking Republican in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as the lead. And so they work together on that. We had the another lead on the bill was the Democratic Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on East Asia, and the Republican, the ranking member of the Democratic, the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on East Asia in the house was also on the bookmobile. So we're lucky that if one of the two houses went Republican, that it was the House of Representatives, as you said, the lower house because the Republicans are on board in that house, it's really only the Senate that we've that we had trouble with.
Brad 1:23:43
Okay, so I don't want to overstate it, but then does this. The doors kind of wide open to to get a bunch of legislation through?
Michael Haack 1:23:54
Yeah. The door is open. Yeah, wide open is yeah, that's maybe too much. But it's a good next step. I mean, you know it. So the NDA is every year, you know, to be honest, like, still the best way to pass any legislation related to foreign relations is going to be getting it in the NDAA. So but, you know, the next big piece of legislation is is appropriations, which is where they actually like, spend the money that things like the NDAA authorizes them to spend. And so that battle is coming up relatively quickly. The US is, even though we're in the 2023 fiscal year, we're still running on the 2022 budget. Hopefully, we'll actually pass a few lessons 23 budgets soon. But then we also like you know can begin for the next day The next budget bill. And luckily, the person in the Senate is the same same person for that one. So yeah, I mean, there's gonna be lots to do. Like, the more like people like me, you know, learn about, you know, because also like, honestly, like the advocates learn from this right like and like us Advocacy Coalition for Myanmar who's I've been a part of a really a lot of like, really awesome, like young, Burmese folk, around the the US have been involved in like, you know, a lot of them. I've been attending meetings with myself and with members of Congress, like for like, now, like, two years. So they like, they get it, like they get the rhythm of how Congress works. They, you know, we have happy hours sometimes and like, you know, the legislative staff come to the happy hours, we can talk to them. And, you know, we're increasing in our sophistication through this process. And so, yeah, I mean, the more you do, the more you can do.
Brad 1:26:11
Okay. So are there any particular people that we want to target that we want to lobby? Like, is it more important for us to be friends with Chuck Schumer? Is it more important to be friends with the people on the committee's? Yeah, yeah, the committee is more important.
Michael Haack 1:26:27
Yeah. Yeah. Cuz the leader will default to the committee. Be just sort of out of courtesy.
Brad 1:26:35
I would have assumed the committee follows whatever the leader tells them to do.
Michael Haack 1:26:40
Ya know? Sometimes, I mean, the leader sorted decides, like, what to put the party prioritizes. The leaders will very rarely put their name on legislation. So, but the leader has like a lot of sort of behind the scenes influence, like we like McConnell is not on the Foreign Relations Committee, but he did have a lot of, you know, influence over the Burma bill. But that was all like, behind the scenes stuff. That was like offices calling offices. And so, ya know, the committee chairs are the most important. Okay, and then other members of the committee. Yeah. And
Brad 1:27:28
those static or do they rotate? Or what happens with those? Are they ad hoc?
Michael Haack 1:27:33
No, so yeah, they're picked at the beginning of each Congress. I expect the foreign relations and foreign affairs to remain pretty much the same. Although, of course, like the ranking member will become the chair in the in the house, because the Democrats or Republicans are switching roles. But the Senate, I believe, will remain basically that similar. Yeah.
Brad 1:28:03
Okay. Okay, so I think that leaves us with a good sort of overview of where we've come from what we have right now and, and where we can go in the future. So So I think that's a that's an organic place for us to wrap up. But as he's our convention, I want to ask you to just leave the audience with, with any thoughts or any takeaways that you'd like them to mull over, over the coming? hours and days?
Michael Haack 1:28:32
Oh, yes, man. Great question. Um, do you know i? So really great question. You know, I think that that one like it is the story of the Thermopylae and passing in a way is an inspiring story. A lot of people said it wouldn't happen. And but we really worked hard for two years, and we got it done. And it was because of like, really a lot of young people from EMR that really came out and worked on it pretty, pretty tirelessly. And were really smart about like, who to talk to, if you're trying to get to insert influence, you know, the US role in Burma? You know, that's a big, open question. And it's, it's always sort of weird coming here from the US and looking at it because you see, like, people have a lot of hope in what the US is going to do. And then a lot of disappointment when it doesn't do that. You know, I would say the permeability is inspiring, it's important, but also temper your expectations, you know, like this is, this is just a small piece of a very large equation. And, and Yeah, unfortunately, it's only going to play a very minor role in the, in the revolution.
Host 1:30:01
Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. As regular listeners are aware, we often remind our audience about our nonprofit mission that are Burma at the end of the show. Truth be told, fundraising is hard work. And I can personally attest to the fact that it's really no fun to keep asking for contributions. Get the situation on the ground, and Myanmar so distressing that we continue to do so on behalf of the Burmese people. What is most helpful at this time are recurring donations, which help alleviate both the stress and time involved in fundraising. If you're able to pledge a certain amount per month, our team can plan around having at least a consistent minimum amount to work with every month. 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 a nonprofit mission that or Burma. Any donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fund. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Verma website better burma.org That's BETTRDURM a.org and donate directly to In either case, your donation goes to the same cause, and both websites accept credit cards. You can also give the PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma Additionally, we take donations through Patreon Venmo go funding 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 a specific links to those respective accounts or email us at info at better burma.org. If you'd like to give it another way, please contact us. Thank you so much for your kind consideration and support.
1:32:51
Rohingya and other vulnerable populations continue to be displaced and assaulted. Journalists are purposely targeted for harassment and violence. The political opposition has faced unspeakable violence and imprisonment
Host 1:33:09
No no, no. Oh