Transcript: Episode #156: From Democracy to Demolition
Following is the full transcript for the interview with Zach Abuza. 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.
Brad 00:01
Okay, welcome back, everyone. This is our third interview where we are joined once again by Zack. And today we're going to be looking at a number of different topics, we're gonna be jumping around a little bit, covering the state of the conflict, the state of the national unity government, the state of the economy and anything else that happens to come up in our meandering discussion, which whichever direction it goes in is going to prove to be fruitful and insightful. So for those who have not listened to the first two episodes, Zack, would you like to introduce yourself?
Zach Abuza 00:38
My name is Zachary abuser, and I am a professor at the National War College in the United States where I specialize in Southeast Asian security and politics. I've been covering insurgencies and peace processes and political violence for 30 years.
Brad 00:57
Okay, thank you. So on that topic of insurgency and political violence, we're going to kick off on a somewhat controversial topic, but an extremely important topic, and that is war crimes and controversial enough the war crimes specifically that are being committed and that are being alleged to be committed by the pro democracy forces in in Myanmar. Now, we know of a number of cases where enemies that have been captured soldiers that have been captured, have been mistreated by PDF have been executed by PDF. PDF being the cover term for many of the resistance combat resistance groups. We also recently have a video that came out of a teacher who was accused of being an informant for the military. In Domo who was also killed by by PDF based on on allegations of collusion. What can you say of the state of of war crimes being committed by pro democracy forces? Is it? Is it a rampant problem? How does it compare to the military's crimes? Or the what perspective can we take on this?
Zach Abuza 02:13
Every day when you start going through the news of what's happened in Myanmar, you're confronted with just a barrage of war crimes. Yesterday was photos of 13 Rohingya men and boys piled up on the side of the road. We know the military attacks in Saigon, burning down villages after village you know, intentionally targeting civilians, when a one of their lorries hits a landmine. So the atrocities that are coming out of the country are happening many times a day, every day. It's been a big concern for the new GE, whether their own PDFs, those in their direct chain of command, or those who are simply, you know, fighting the military on their own. If they commit war crimes, and war crimes are a fact of war they are going to happen. The question is whether the Annucci can get their PDFs and get within their chain of command the importance of maintaining the moral high ground. There have been a handful of war crimes by the PDFs. But we can't have any false equivalencies between them and the military because the scale is so different. You know, the PDFs have made mistakes. There have been occasions where the N ug has done investigations and looked into it. And it's imperative that they keep doing so they need to go out every day, and juxtapose their own actions against the militaries in order to maintain their moral high ground and their political legitimacy. You just cannot stoop to the level of this attack and what they're doing every day.
Brad 04:35
And I I take the point that you're making, which is it's a horrific reality, that war does not exist without war crimes. It's it's one would presume the stress and the extremity of being in combat situations, knowing that mortars could fall at any time knowing that an ambush could happen at any time drives people to acting in unacceptable It weighs, and also that the scale is incomparable. They absolutely we, we would never say that the PDF have shot up churches and schools and hospitals and things that the military do do on a regular basis. But I wonder there is a, an expression that is going around on Burmese social media, which loosely translates to now it's our turn. And this sense of the oppression that happened not just since the coup of 1962. But in fact, the military was already acting in bad faith and southern Burmese governments were acting in bad faith towards minorities prior to the 62 coup d'etat. So for some of these people, it's been well over half a century of oppression and the mentality that seems to circulate in some groups is well, Fair's fair. Now that now that we're fighting, and now that we have the upper hand, it's, it's not wrong for us to do it, because it's still a microcosm of what it is that you've been doing to us. What would you comment on that particular line of reasoning?
Zach Abuza 06:11
I think the most important thing I would push back on or say to them is that it creates a very bad precedent. The PDFs are not going to militarily defeat the army. The army simply has too many men, too many resources. It has state sponsors and Russia and China and even India. What the PDFs need to do is hollow out the military slowly wear it down through a war of attrition. They want to encourage defections, desertions. And if they mistreat prisoners of war, they're certainly not going to get the defections that they're hoping for. If this can be used by the military, in their social media campaign, and disinformation campaigns and trying to convince their soldiers don't even think about defecting. This is what the PDFs will do to you. That's really counterproductive to what they're trying to achieve. It's so important. You know, when we're talking about asymmetric warfare. We, it is so imperative that groups like the energy maintain the moral high ground at all times. This is a battle for legitimacy. And I clearly understand the decades of egregious war crimes perpetrated by the military. Don't forget, their doctrine is based on the terror terrorizing the civilian population. This is not they do not have a counterinsurgency doctrine, based on winning the hearts and minds of the population winning them over good governance, development projects and the like. Their four cuts strategy is based on terror. And they're doing it every day. And so the the most clearly that the energy can demarcate and draw a line that differentiates them from the military is so important. Again, I understand the stress of war, I understand the frustrations After a heated battle when your your brothers and your comrades have been killed and you capture POWs. But they have to think long term, short term.
Brad 09:09
Because you're breathing into your microphone, probably. Okay, because I'm just getting this like rhythmic. Static occasionally. That's fine. We'll we'll just edit. Anyway. So I want to turn to a comment that you you made in there, you said quite firmly that the PDF cannot defeat the tomato militarily. And in previous, the previous two interviews that we had, we focused on the capacity and the strategy of the tomato and the capacity and the strategy of the PDF. And what we were getting a lot of what you were saying is that the military have lost somewhere in the vicinity of 16 17% of their actual Combat capable stuff. defections are high, and a leading cause of that Babs more so than then casualties, but that the PDF can readily shore up their numbers. They they, they've their actual total combined forces compare quite favorably to one another. It's the helicopters and the artillery and the tanks that the military having an advantage but as you yourself pointed out the replacement parts for helicopters are scarce, the jet fuel is scarce. The ammunition for for artillery is is apparently dwindling. So, with all that in mind, why exactly is it that you say that the PDF cannot win this in conventional military terms.
Zach Abuza 10:43
I just don't see them being able to defeat the military in a force on force campaign than marching to nape Adan takeover. You know, I just don't see that. What I have always thought the path to victory for the MUFG is that they hollow up the military, they're fighting on so many different fronts, that they logistically can no longer fight, they don't have the manpower, they can't don't control the roads, effectively, they can't move forces from one front to another, that they simply wear away. They're depleted because of casualties. I can't think of a military out there whose leadership is as callous and willing to use their troops as just cannon fodder. The way the Burmese military is. It's their callous disregard for their own casualties is going to undermine them in the long run. I my goal, not my goal. My belief is the way the N ug wins is that you get enough colonels and one star generals who are actually in charge of running this war. Who understand that that it cannot be done. Logistically, they simply do not have the manpower that they do not have the supplies, they cannot resupply their forces. They're becoming too dependent on artillery and airstrikes, but they can't control actual ground. They can terrorize the population, they can burn villages, they're certainly going on a dry season offensive right now and say gun. But at the end of the day, you get that kind of mid management of the military who realize that this cannot be one, and that the military leadership has led them to a defeat. And if they are going to salvage the militaries placed in the economy, in politics or even society, you get those generals, art who are trying to find a negotiated settlement with Iannucci. And that's kind of how this ends.
Brad 13:44
So I know this is an impossible question to answer. But I'm curious. Do you have any sense of what that tipping point is because you're the guys you're talking about colonels and, and and one star generals. Those are quite high up like we've seen defections of left tenants of captains even occasionally something around the level of a major but defections of generals. That's not really something that, to my knowledge we were seeing, we might be a while off from that. So what are the losses? Or what is the logistic defeat that would trigger people of that level, the General Staff starting to say, You know what, I'm actually better off with the PDF, even though my own military will put a bounty on my head the moment I do it.
Zach Abuza 14:36
Right. So maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let me try to blame. What would cause the tipping point? I think if the energy and the PDFs are able to survive this coming year, if they can survive a dry season offensive if they can maintain In the working alliance with the different affiliated ers. You know, I think that will, you know, plays such an important role that they are part of the firmament the military knows that they cannot defeat the PDF suit now control, you know, with the era is over half the country, at least effective control. Meanwhile, the economy will continue to tank, you know, the economy collapsed 18% and 2021. Inflation is soaring in Myanmar, the economy is hard hit exports other than oil and gas are down there, the government is having trouble raising revenue, the two military owned conglomerates are so in such duress, they haven't paid their dividends now for two years. So we know they're cash strapped. Foreign investment really is not coming into the country in significant amounts, it's still unfortunately going in. So I think there you will get this a small group of of kind of junior generals, and some colonels who are in charge of this war, actually executing this war, who come to the determination that it cannot be won. And decide to cut their losses and save themselves. I'm not sure exactly when it happens. Obviously, and we've talked about this before, the number of defections across the military is still quite low. And it's quite low because of what the military has done to make it very difficult and very costly to defect. The military lives on bases, entire families live in contaminants. The people bank in the military owned banks. So you know, if people are trying to withdraw their their life savings, the military will know something's up. They use their cell phones from me tell, remind tell. So the military is tracking their movements, they're tracking their communications, they live in their own little media bubble, you know, shut off from the rest of society. So the military really has been able to prevent defections in mass. It's happened. And sometimes we've seen entire units defect. But still, the number of defections is disappointing. They're important, I think we should be encouraging them. I think the international community should be providing greater financial assistance to encourage this and to support the media and social media operations to encourage those defections. But still small numbers. But I come back to this idea that the military is not likely to be defeated. But it will be hollowed out to the point that it is no longer in the effective fighting force.
Brad 18:50
It was one of the the the lessons that I've learned, obviously, I've never been in a military context. But when you play, even strategy games, there's there's a hard lesson that you that you learn early on, which is consistently making advantageous moves is not sufficient. You actually have to have a pathway to a victory, you have to have an idea of how that victory is going to look. And you need to know what steps are going to get you to that specific victory. A series of individually good looking decisions does not magically confer victory, and that's sort of how I've looked at the conflict. The military has a lot of advantages. They've taken a lot of very bold steps, and some of them have led to a strategic upper hand for them in certain areas. But what I keep coming back to is this question, does the military have a pathway to a victory scenario, and I can't for the life of me see how they could possibly succeed in this conflict.
Zach Abuza 19:58
The military does Have a path to victory. Or they think they do. I'm not sure I completely agree with it. And it's, it's not that complicated. First is to continue to do what they're doing on the ground, terrorizing the population, trying to convince them not to support the energy and the PDFs. So far that hasn't worked. And it's obviously frustrating to them, you know, for over 40 years, they have been able to terrorize the population into submission. And this is the first time that the population across the country has, you know, defied the military. The second thing that they intend to do are, is to hold elections next August. Now, these are going to be shambolic elections. But they will probably be enough. For some members of the international community, obviously, China and Russia and India will kind of sign off on them. But even some members of ASEAN are going to likely sign off and say, good enough. Japan and South Korea may sign off on them and say, Okay, time to get back to business. I'm absolutely terrified of this, that the military is going to be able to hold elections and enough of the international community will kind of look at it and say, Alright, they're no longer a military dictatorship. Let's get back to trade and investing. The third path to victory for the military is to go after the energy center of gravity. And that center of gravity is the nujs relationship with a different era shows. That is their strength. There's never been such coordination between an ethnic Berman led organization like the N, ug, it's still preponderant. Lee Berman, and the different euros Is it perfect? No, but never before have you had such close coordination. And the military knows that. And they are trying and you can say they're not doing a very good job at this. But they're constantly still having peace talks. They're flying up different commanders from Euros to Naypyidaw, for these peace talks, they're trying to peel one group away, trying to bribe them, give them some autonomy agreements, right revenue sharing. So far, they haven't been able to do this that effectively. But I would get people to pay attention to what happened recently with a ceasefire with that American army. Now, the American army never has joined with the energy there's not a formal Alliance. But the energy certainly benefited from the hostilities and Rakhine between the military and the American army. It was a new front for the military, they had to deploy 40,000 troops there. It was costly, they had to deploy air assets there. And those are all finite resources. And so when you have the ceasefire, even if it's a very tenuous one, it allows the military to once again redeploy forces to move their heirs assets to other regions. And then they can kind of put pressure on the American army to stop arming some of the PDFs in say, gang, and that starts to create mistrust and unhappiness within the energy leadership. Right there thought all we really thought that our kind of army was with us a new front. Nope, they're acting in their own narrow self interest. And the military knows that, you know, given amount of time, they can go back to divide and conquer that, you know, these groups will tire a fighting, and they can kind of go in to one group at a time and start to cut deals. And so that's the military's path to victory. It's it's a three step process. assess, but they think they can wait this out. And, you know, the sad thing is, it's not a crazy path to victory, they really think that they can kind of use their troops as cannon fodder. They don't care about casualties. They think they will continue to get economic and military support from China from India from Russia. They're hopeful that ASEAN will remain feckless and divided. And they're hoping that the the historical mistrust between the Burman population and the ethnic resistance organizations starts to manifest and break break apart that alliance.
Brad 25:50
I mean, it makes sense, although, again, when we just look at the cold, hard realities, in fact, you yourself in this interview said that it's it's a question of, can they end up in the PDF survive the dry season offensive, you almost suggesting that it's a war of attrition, and it's, it's just who can hold on longer, who can keep going for that extra couple of months? On both sides, and, and so you mentioned the election, and I want to talk about that, because this is something that they've been signaling for a long time. And it's something that we all know, is going to be fraudulent. When we look at the way the military handled the 1990 election, which was a legitimate election, and they and all the results and the rest of the opposition leaders, when we look at the the way that they faked the results of the 2008 constitutional referendum, when we look at the way that they rigged the terms of the 2010 election and goaded the NLD into boycotting, no matter what tactic they're going to use, the the end result is going to be that the military will declare victory. But it's an interesting strategy, because when they rigged the terms of the election, if the NLD refuses to participate, and in order to participate, they have to register with the military controlled Electoral Commission. If the NLD refuses to participate, the military narrative will be that the NLD does not actually want to engage in democracy. And because they didn't participate in the election, they cannot be legitimate government. If the NLD does participate, the election will be rigged, the NLD will lose. And then the military will say, well, they tried they lost the democratic will of the people is that the military dictatorship should stay. And anyone who opposes that is clearly undemocratic, and and cannot be trusted. So it's damned if you do damned if you don't. So is there a is there a good strategy for for the Democratic Parties in facing this election?
Zach Abuza 27:59
No, there isn't. I think you identified the problems really well. Immediately after the coup. You know, I wrote a few pieces and said it's you have to understand that they're going to emulate what the Thai military did following their 2014 coup and, you know, between the elections they held in 2019. And what the ties military did in drafting a new constitution. They created an upper house that the military appointed 100% of the 250 seats. They engaged in gerrymandering Malla portion to vote, they banned political parties, they saddled opposition figures, with jail terms with legal cases against them. They controlled the media they use the Computer Crimes Act, they use law as a measure just charges to to silence dissent. They use their monopoly of control over the election commission to basically come up with their proportional representation and party LIS see a plan and we can see the Union Election Commission in Myanmar kind of copy every one of those things. You know, everything from establishing proportional representation to arresting the NLD leadership, even, you know, mid level people just keeping them out, threatening to dissolve the NLD their thorough control of social media and the air waives the fact that the Union Election Commission is completely controlled by the military, they won't just have their thumb on their scale they they will be standing on it with without arm load of bricks. You know this is going to favor the military's party. So we know that these elections are going to be shambolic. There's going to be nothing free and fair about them. So the question for the N ug is do you have a nationwide strike and sit it out? What happens if the military then starts going house to house and at the barrel of a gun forcing people to vote and killing them? If they don't? We have the whole question. The military really doesn't control almost half the country. So what's that going to mean? You know, the elections are really fraught. And I'm, I'm quite concerned that as bad as they're going to be. The international community, as I said before, is going to say good enough and start get back and allow that to legitimize a military on top light. What's so important, and probably the best thing we can do right now is to have countries like the United States, Australia, Japan, and in particular, the ASEAN states come out and unequivocally state, we will not recognize the results of a shambolic election. It was heartening a few weeks ago, when the Malaysian foreign minister sai Fudan came out and said just that in very forceful terms. Unfortunately, he's no longer the foreign minister. You know, elections have consequences. And there's a new foreign minister from the old UMNO party, and I'm expecting a much more traditional, less confrontational approach from Malaysian the future. We don't know whether President Widodo of Indonesia, now the president, the rotating president of ASEAN, is going to come out and unequivocally reject the polls, if they are held in August. It would be wonderful if he came out immediately and preemptively rejected them. We'll see foreign policy has never been a priority for him. But he has been critical of the military. So we'll see. But we really need the international community to be in lockstep about this. And make very clear that sham elections are not a pathway for international legitimacy and normalization of this barbaric military regime.
Brad 33:27
I mean, I agree with the principle behind what you're saying. But as you noted, when when when the election first came up, countries like China, countries like Russia, are inevitably going to use this whether or not there is a pro democracy country. unilateral move hold on so unilateral. On the directional move to discount this election, those countries who want to engage with Myanmar are going to use it as an excuse to do so whether this is for the purposes of arms shipments or military training, whether it's for the purpose of of economic investment, or more likely economic exploitation, they're going to do it. If anything, an argument will inevitably be made, that if other countries do not recognize the legitimacy of the election, and they refuse to engage with Myanmar, this gives bad faith actors and dictatorial countries a monopoly over the economic and political and strategic opportunities that Myanmar represents. So for example, if China and India hate each other, if India looks at the situation, not so much in terms of the ethics of recognizing this election, but in terms of the strategy of a very pro China ally, developing on its eastern border, India for reasons of survival and self defense might say, Well, we know the election was was a sham. But we also need to cut off Chinese influence into into Myanmar. So like, would you agree that it's inevitable that these elections are going to be used by by sudden countries, particularly dictatorial, bad faith actors as an excuse to ramp up their engagement with the military and to help prop up the military regime in the future?
Zach Abuza 35:22
Yes, I completely agree with that. And I would take it further and say, there are countries that aren't even bad faith actors that that really should be more responsible and more critical, like South Korea, like Japan, who will probably, you know, begin to allow those elections to normalize a post military regime, even if it's it's the generals simply taking off their uniforms.
Brad 35:56
Why would that be? I wonder, like, I mean, South Korea has had its history with military dictatorship as well. One, one would presume that they would be very wary of military dictatorships popping up and being supported within the general neighborhood. So why why would you say that South Korea and Japan in particular are likely to recognize such elections?
Zach Abuza 36:22
I hope I'm wrong. I really do. South Korea, as you mentioned, came out of a military dictatorship from 1961 until 1988. So this is the their democratic transition is within living memory. And of all the countries that really should know better and be more supportive of a people's movement against a brutal military dictatorship. It's the South Koreans. The problem is the dominance of the large conglomerates, the tribal, and their investments in Southeast Asia in general, and Myanmar, in particular. You know, this has been an important place for investment for them. And I think they want to get back to making money. Japan is another frustrating case. And, you know, the Japanese founded the tatmadaw. You know, they created the Burmese military, before the country was founded. And they, they just have this attachment to it. They believe that they have influence over it. You know, that they trained on sun. And it's still permeates their thinking to this day. Ever since the coup, the US government has not been able to get the Japanese to support sanctions. Japan was slow to come out and condemn the junta. They had a real wait and see attitude that hopefully that the demonstrations, the civil disobedience movement will pass and kind of we can get back and do business. No Toyota wants to expand their manufacturing there. And of course, the Japanese have a real concern that if they are too harsh on the generals and begin to sanction them, that they're ceding the country to greater Chinese influence, which the Japanese really don't want. Neither South Korea nor Japan have ever had democracy or human rights protection as a cornerstone of their foreign policies. And it really shows in the case of Myanmar, I have argued to the Japanese that, look, there really two things you care about in Myanmar, and that is you want political stability, and you want sound economic stewardship. And this junta gives you neither, they're waging a multi front war against their population. They do not control half the country. There is instability there's violence, political violence in Yangon and others cities and look at what they have done to the economy. They have absolutely tanked it and I just I've tried to make the case to the Japanese that everything you want, the junta is undermining. And so you really need to revisit your policy. So we'll see, the Japanese are slow to to change their policies, and they don't like to, to have to reverse them when they their policies have failed.
Brad 40:25
I mean, that sounds pretty familiar. But then it's got this. So this puts us in an awkward position. So what we're looking at seems to be quite a few countries, even countries that are now democratic, are not particularly pro dictatorship, or, or pro human rights abuse, whether directly or indirectly, are likely to support the military. And those bad faith actors. And the dictatorial countries that we have, are directly supporting the military. We just saw this this last week, I think, the delivery of six new fighter jets from China to the military, we've seen consistently huge supplies of of whether it's armaments, or whether it's, you know, spare parts, whether it's, you know, just material in general, from Russia. And, and there have been allegations of Iran sending supplies. The jet fuel, as I think you've you've pointed out in the past is coming across the border from India. So there are quite a few states that are very directly doing business with the SEC providing them with the tools that they need to continue this conflict. And yet simultaneously, there seems to be a phenomenal hesitation on the side of seemingly pro freedom, pro democracy countries to provide any comparable form of material or military support to whether the new G whether the CEOs, whether the PDF, whether whatever acronym we're using this week, what what seems to be underlying this disconnect.
Zach Abuza 42:09
So yes, the Chinese are still selling weapons, especially some of the larger platforms, a jet fighters to Myanmar, Russia continues to sell weapons, though, one has to wonder at the rate at which they are burning through their munitions and Arsenal, whether they will be able to sustain this. Myanmar is a loyal client. But it's it's not a particularly large one or an important one for Russia. And India is continues to sell weapons. The jet fuel is still coming into the country through the ports, it's coming overland from India. And the new Chinese jet fighters are going to be deployed in northern Shan State, which raises the concern that you are going to start getting jet fuel imports from across the border in from China. So this, the support for the content is still there. And you know that that is just not going to change right now. I cannot comment on Iranian support. But you could clearly imagine them or other actors spilling been willing to enter that space. So that begs the question, then why has the West not provided lethal assistance, and it's absolutely inexplicable. The energy is a legitimate government. They have the support of the population. They provide the only path forward for a country in terms of establishing a democratic federal system that has the potential. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but has the potential to bring a durable peace to this country that has been at war with itself since its independence in 1948. So I, I can make a very clear and compelling argument why the N ug should receive lethal assistance. But I can also give you all the reasons why it's not going to happen. And I had I'm not happy about this A countries like the United States have armed and supported very illegitimate groups in the past very thuggish groups, we have supported groups that have gone back to bite us in the ass later on. And yet, here you have a group that's really trying to create a stable, and prosperous and independent state founded on democracy on federalism. This is a country that we could really easily influence. So let's go through some of the reasons why has not gotten lethal assistance. For one thing, the European countries, Australia, Japan, really don't have a long history of supporting groups like the new chief sub state actors. So that kind of takes a large number of states right off the table. This is just not something they're comfortable doing. The United States could do it. But you know, Myanmar is so peripheral in to the United States in terms of our interests. Sure, there's some American corporate investment in the country, but very little, is there a Burmese diaspora in the United States? Sure, but they're spread across 50 states, you don't have a critical mass, you don't have a real strong lobbying in Congress. I think one of the real problems for Myanmar, and the new CI is that the situation in the country is so incredibly complex, to get American policymakers to sit there and try to understand the relationship between the energy the various er owes the ones that are with the energy, the ones who are taking a wait and see approach those who are actually bandwagoning with the junta. It's an incredibly complex picture. And so when they're, they would sit there and start to think about, Well, who would we are? That becomes very difficult. There's the real concern, certainly in the United States, that some er O's have been deeply involved in illicit narcotic production. And no policymaker wants to be called out for a vote in which they voted for the supply of lethal assistance to a group that is now flooding the global drugs markets, with methamphetamine and ketamine and all sorts of other synthetic drugs. You know, that's been a and you can say, look, the N ug is not involved in illicit narcotics. No one's willing to take that risk, then you get other problems. If you were to supply wanted to supply the energy with lethal assistance, how would you get it there, Thailand's not going to allow you into the border regions, they barely allow the United States to have humanitarian corridors to support refugees. China's not going to allow it. India's not gonna allow it. Maybe Bangladesh, but I doubt Bangladesh would allow it. So there are logistical problems with this. You know, and finally, the war in Ukraine, which you mentioned Slyke if if the Americans can spend $25 billion there. Why Why can't we spend a fraction of that in Myanmar? And, again, I could make a very compelling case of why Myanmar and the N ug deserve lethal assistance. I can also tell you that in terms of military equipment, and munitions, the Ukrainians are burning through everything we can supply them we cannot manufacture quickly enough. No one was expecting A war of this scale, our industrial base, as large as it is, is, you know, they produce on a month right now, less than the number of artillery shells that Ukraine is going through in a five day period. So we're actually running down or on reserves. And the US military is actually starting to push back on supplying Ukraine with weapons because they're saying, Well, what if we have a war and we need those weapons? So there's just in short, there's going to be no international lethal assistance for the energy. Now, it's not all bad. And let me explain why. The first is, there are weapons to be had. There are black markets, in fact, very large black markets for arms, due to the long history of insurgency, poor governance, illicit narcotics. So the energy is able to purchase weapons. Now they're paying a lot more for them. Demand has certainly driven up the costs. So the nujs limited finances are not going as far as they used to. The most important source of weapons for any guerrilla group is actually what they capture on the battlefield. And the N ug, and their PDFs have done a very good job with that, and are really starting to equip forces across the country. And that, of course, leads to more Battlefield victories, which should in turn lead to more captured weapons and ammunition. Some of the ER rows are able to manufacture their own ammunition that is available to the N ug, it just it costs money. So I don't think it's an international weapons problem, I think it's more of a resource and financial problem, that war is just really costly. You know, the energy can raise $40 million in bonds sales and or through the sale of properties owned by the military in these pre emptive auctions. But you know, $40 million, doesn't go very far when when you're trying to arm 50,000 men to take on the military.
Brad 52:52
I mean, everything you're saying, you know, it makes sense. But it's just the thing that was going through my mind the whole time you're talking, it's just this concept of the what I can only term as the hypocrisy of notionally pro democratic countries, the same countries who stand in line to condemn a coup, who stand in line to condemn the executions of activists, the same countries who are sending strongly worded letters of condemnation to the Iranian regime right now. are not willing to do anything like when it comes down to it, and yet those countries whose policy is don't complain about my human rights abuses, and I won't complain about yours, they're actually willing to put material on the table. Yes, they might be doing it for very self interested purposes, they're still getting money out of it. They don't, they're not giving it for free, and for, you know, the sake of the love and the kindness, but, you know, you talk about the crimes that the drug trade that the PDF is associated with, that just reminded me of when the United States was was supporting the contrast in Nicaragua. And they, they once again, it was the same thing, the contrasts were moving cocaine and and so it became politically infeasible to support them. And yet Reagan and Oliver North still conspired to sell weapons illegally to Iran to raise funds to continue supporting the contracts, because they believed for whatever reason, that supporting the contrast against the I think it was the Sandinistas was the right thing to do. So it proves that there are those cases where even when political will turns against you what the government is doing to support one side more foreign conflict. You do occasionally have characters who are willing to stand up and say no I'm doing this anyway, we're going to the yesterday sell drugs. But we believe it's the lesser of two evils. Now, yes, the Iran Contra affair was horrifically controversial and highly, highly illegal. But it just goes to that point of there have been these times in history where Western nations have said, We're doing this because we're doing this. And I don't care if it's not politically popular to do it. And now in the 21st century, it just seems to be, well, we're not comfortable with it. We don't really know who they are. There are allegations of misconduct or allegations of drug trafficking. And it's like, does that does that stack up to an attack helicopter, leveling a primary school? Are these two things even remotely comparable? Both are bad, but there are levels of bad. And it seems like they're equivocating and saying, Well, if one side is a little bit bad, then the other side can commit literal genocide. And it's still just bad guys versus bad guys, so we better not touch it. Like, what is it just this fear of getting your hands dirty at all? You know, like, are they waiting for a perfect white knight that they can stand behind or what? What's going on here?
Zach Abuza 56:12
The hypocrisy is real. You you've identified it. And I cannot disagree with it. Again, I would come back to interest. Myanmar is a long way from the United States. We don't do a lot of trade, very limited investment, small diaspora community in America. Not politically connected. They don't have great supporters within Congress, you know, champions for the cause. I think it's also important that, you know, after Aung San su chi went to The Hague to defend the her military, her her captors before the for the Rohingya genocide, you know, that really burnt bridges with the West. And right now, even with all the different court cases against her, and you know, absolute kangaroo court stuff, and you know, baseless charges. Boy in the West, you you don't even hear her name, the sympathy for her, you know, democracy icon, human, Nobel Prize Laureate, you don't hear that anymore. And so there's not even this one figure that the international community can really focus on. And, you know, Karma is a bitch. And that, that has really proven disastrous for the international community, no one's going to come out and say, you know, let's do this for su chi, she's under protest against the against the barbaric military. The point you were making, though, that the authoritarian regimes will come to the aid of Myanmar is exactly right. Birds of a feather flock together. They all have a vested interest in the continuation of a fellow authoritarians hold on power. The ending of an authoritarian regime, the spread of democracy is a potential contagion to them. And so they will always provide material assistance to fellow authoritarians. And, you know, the West, just is unwilling to get involved in Myanmar, even if they will come out and publicly state that the N ug is the legitimate government of the people and should be given greater representation. But that's about as far as everyone's willing to go right now.
Brad 59:39
But it feels like where is the nuance? Because I understand what you're saying you're completely correct. But why? Why is politics become as one dimensional, as the 24 hour news cycle is? Why is it that we cannot look at ourselves Suchi and say you're Well, active participation in the denial of the ongoing Rohingya genocide is despicable. And we understand that you know, you were you weren't doing it for your domestic political career. You were doing it because your voter base were largely misled and misinformed by the military. But let's be honest, deep down, you knew exactly what was going on. And you allowed it to continue, while simultaneously also recognizing that she is on the chopping block as a scapegoat for the military. Her treatment is unjustifiable, and, and the will of the people of Myanmar is being completely and totally ignored and subverted. You know, why can't we recognize both of these things be true and act on both of these things accordingly? Why is it just one thing?
Zach Abuza 1:00:53
Yeah. I wish that we could have such nuance, and it just doesn't exist, certainly with policymakers. Really, I don't have an answer to that. You know, I, boy. It's so unfortunate in this case, because there's without Suchi she's the only person that policymakers in Europe, or the United States or Australia could readily identify. And not having that unifying force that that one person who could command you know, that charismatic figure that can command international attention and respect has been really devastating for the MUJI.
Brad 1:02:06
It's the power of symbols is just this is not relevant to anything, it's just it's just a fascinating thing. Having a having a symbol is great as a centralizing unifying force, something to rally around. But it's a double edged sword, because the more you invest in your symbols, the easier it is to undermine a movement by tarnishing those symbols, or by removing more symbols. And it pains me if what you're telling me is that it is not just a symptom of our society and of the media cycle, but that this is an endemic mentality among the people who actually make it implement government policies, that they too are more interested in symbols and slogans than in carefully considered strategy and, and the potential impacts of their action or in this case, in action, because we would really expect the better of the people who who hold lives in their hands than we expect to the average punter watching the six o'clock news. But increasingly, it seems that we can't expect better.
Zach Abuza 1:03:23
And it's too bad that we need these one individuals that we can kind of glob on to, because we really need to be focusing on building up institutions, not these individuals, because the individuals will always let you down at some point. You know, for all that she did. There, the NLD certainly did not have a good transition of leadership to a new generation. They did not empower a new generation of leaders that they really needed. So you know, that that's, that's a problem. And certainly in America, we get much too close to to an individual and in the personalization of policy.
Brad 1:04:35
Absolutely. And I think I think what you're pointing out there, I think it continues, I think it's pervasive within the national unity government. Now as well, transition of power is not really culturally present. There's there's a very strong sentiment and I am not sure whether it was you who mentioned this in an in a previous interview, that culture of sacrifice that Myanmar culture may want political culture reveal the idea that those who protested in 1988, and those who suffered those who were targeted those who are imprisoned and tortured, they deserve respect. But more than respect, they deserve positions of leadership. And the sad reality is that what worked in 1988 does not necessarily work in 2022. And we need to make way for other people different thinking, different approaches, different styles. And people who are not sort of in the political ivory tower, you know, the strange that might be to talk about the energy and in those terms, considering the conflict, but it is a problem that a lot of people complain about. So what what what can we talk about transitioning to the energy now that we're looking at about two years, almost post conflict, or post coup? What is the state of the energy as a functioning government? What What has it done? And what does it still need to do?
Zach Abuza 1:06:21
I give the energy pretty high marks for what they've been able to do. Not not all their ministries, there have been differences. But But let me start with the fact that they stood this up and they got buy in from the public that every day, you know, I can kind of flip through Twitter in the morning and, and see civil disobedience movements from kitchen state, down to mon state to Rakhine, everyday people are out there, supporting the N ug Bill believing that it is the legitimate govern, that's the most important thing. The second thing is they have formed this alliance with various ethnic resistance organizations. And they have presented a roadmap to a durable political future for the country based on democracy and federalism, power sharing with the different ethnic groups. So now I can be very critical that the actual constitution or getting to a constitutional convention is a long way off. I think they're they're really making mistake in not expediting the drafting of, of such documents. The nujs Ministry of Finance has done a phenomenal job in fundraising for this revolution. They have been creative, they have been tech savvy, they have used technology to issue crypto bonds. They have been fun and playful in the auctioning off of military owned properties or illegally appropriated properties. They have tapped into the patriotism and the nationalism of the population. You know, the bonds pays zero yield. So people are not buying this, those bonds for investment. It is a patriotic responsibility. People are doing paying money that they will not make when they might not ever get repaid. But they're doing it as a sign of the energies legitimacy. The Ministry of Finance has really had to think hard about how to move money from overseas from you know, from Europe or Australia or America back. They've had to figure out how to create the new GE pay. So because of what the military did, you know, through their absolute gutting of the banking system, so many of the E wallets or E commerce broke down. And so the new G is trying to create an alternative to that. So I think they deserve very high marks. The Ministry of funds of Foreign Affairs is doing a good job they are getting more representative offices just a couple of weeks ago, they opened one up here in Washington DC. They are not getting the DiPel Matic recognition that they want. But they've done a good job in denying the military junta, the representation they crave. They've done a pretty good job at communicating to the international community, quietly lobbying, being on the sidelines of the US ASEAN Summit, they've done a good job in in trying to keep the UN seat now held by Ambassador chama tune. So they they are doing a lot with limited resources. And then, you know, you get some of the other ministries that are trying to, you know, for the messaging about war crimes, I think there's much more that the Ministry of Information could do in terms of of keeping the messaging going. But, you know, they're they're doing an adequate job in terms of getting their message out about what's happening in Myanmar. Not perfect, but but but not bad by comparable standards. The thing to really watch in the coming year, is how well, especially in the regions, they control, that they are able to stand up a shadow government and provide some basic services, education is the most important thing they can do. It does create that bond between the people in the state. But they also have to provide health care, we are still in a global pandemic. There are new variants of of COVID-19, rearing their head all the time. And Myanmar is really a public health blackhole right now. So they have that role. Increasingly, they're trying to do some policing and establish a court system. And again, they have very limited resources to do this. The international community is not going to provide lethal assistance to the N ug, but boy in terms of the provision of social services and medical care, education. I think there's so much more that the international community not only can do but should do.
Brad 1:13:06
Absolutely. But then. So I think we brought this up in one of the previous interviews that neither one of us was able to think of any government or shadow government, whatever term we want to use, that has existed under similar conditions to the energy and has achieved anything, anywhere near the scale of what the energy has has achieved. And certainly there needs to be a lot of praise for the energy. And for a lot of the external partners that have been willing to work with the energy, whether they were paid or in some cases, external partners who, who don't want to be named, and who also have have worked for free charitably, to try and provide assistance to the NUJ that there's certainly been a not inconsiderable amount of goodwill and charity, from NGOs, from private enterprises, from government actors, whoever the case may be. But I think it's important that we look at are there concrete steps or changes that the energy needs to make you you mentioned the Constitution, that they need to start taking that much more seriously, and they need to accelerate that process? Is there anything else that you would say the AUG needs to really focus more resources on or change their approach to in order to not give the military some sort of leverage or toehold or something?
Zach Abuza 1:14:46
I think it's important that they focus on those basic provisions of social service, simply because the military regime has done such a terrible job in providing those social services, education, health care. You know, the military has really failed as a state they have trouble collecting taxes. There's massive tax avoidance. People are surely try not even to pay their electric bills. So no one trusts the military to be competent stewards of the economy. So I think that the N ug simply focuses on those provision of basic social services is the most important thing they can do right now other than fight and win a war.
Brad 1:15:51
Absolutely. And so you, you've mentioned the economy, and you've mentioned the economy a few times today, and that's probably the ultimate topic that we're going to gravitate to in this interview. But let's, let's seriously talk about the economy more broadly. Of course, this topic is what happens post victory, because in so many conflicts, whether we're talking about interstate wars, whether we're talking about internal conflicts, revolutions, coup d'etat, so on, the question is always well, how are we going to win? The question is very often not, what are we going to do once we've won? And you you, you see so many cases where there's victory, and then there's this moment of like, okay, but so what now? How do we fix things, he's not just transitioning to stable government. In the case of Myanmar, we've seen and on this podcast, we've interviewed other people who've spoken to us about the labor industry, and the State of the Unions, the state of factories, who have spoken about the raising of, of agricultural land, who have spoken about the rampant over exploitation, parasitic over exploitation of natural resources under the hunters control. The power sector is in crisis and has been in crisis for decades. Obviously, malaria is running rampant, tuberculosis is running rampant. COVID-19 is running rampant, although it's no longer front page news anymore. To the people who are suffering with it. It certainly still is, all of these factors combined, to to show us a picture of a country that is at least a decade behind where it was pre coup, and what what, what what can be done, how can how can this be salvaged? If if industries are not operating? If there's no economy? If there's no outside investment, like will Myanmar just come out of conflict, only to stagnate in abject poverty? Or is there a path forward?
Zach Abuza 1:18:09
Or you frame that in as grim terms as as I can imagine, but you're not wrong. If the energy won and took over tomorrow, they would be inheriting a hell of a mess. The junta and their actions and they're just abject incompetence. has decimated the economy. The eviscerated 1012 years of rapid economic growth in a matter of months. The economy contracted 18% last year. Inflation is in double digits right now. currency controls have limited imports, including fertilizers, which has impacted agriculture. The war has destroyed infrastructure, roads, communications networks, and they were never that well off to begin with. It's dried up much foreign investment and the foreign investors going in now really deserve greater scrutiny because they are actively engaging with a military regime. So the economy's just a mess, the chat lost 60% of its value at At one point, the ability for the government to service debts, their international debts now is your has increased because of the devaluation of the currency. And don't forget, just this fall, the Financial Action Task Force, put Myanmar on their blacklist for money laundering. And what this determination has done is they they it basically means that they cannot trust the Myanmar government, to police itself to in investigate its financial networks. And what they're really saying is that the economy of Myanmar is a criminal enterprise, the government is a criminal enterprise, that cannot control the vast amount of illicit money in the country. The FATF blacklist is not a sanction, it does not prevent companies from going in and investing in Myanmar. But it certainly makes the costs of doing so much higher, they will have to report every financial transaction, they do, they will have to make sure and their compliance officers will have to ensure that whoever they're doing business with are not engaged in money laundering. So it simply raises the transaction costs for businesses, and many are not going to want to be there. And certainly the reputational costs of being in a FATF blacklisted state, you know, the only other two are North Korea and a ramp. So it's not great company to be at. So, you know, the economy is is really in bad shape. And, you know, it's still largely an agrarian economy. And, you know, agricultural yields are down, exports are down. And I think sometimes we forget that, you know, farmers are always living just on the edge of, of being able to sustain themselves. Their subsistence is always just so in doubt, you know, they can suffer one bad crop, one bad harvest, but very few farmers have the wherewithal to withstand two or three bad harvests in a row. And that's kind of where you're going to get due to the breakdown in markets, the breakdown in available capital, to farmers, the lack of imports of fertilizers and pesticides. So there's I wouldn't even know where competent economists and economic managers would even begin right now. At least the N ug is sir, is comprised of competent, thoughtful managers, which is not the case of the junta, you know, they'll they'll put, you know, any Leftenant, Colonel in charge of of something, including in the central banks, excuse me, the central bank. You know, they're not looking for competence or stewardship. They're looking for loyalty.
Brad 1:24:03
But then, I mean, obviously, we're not going to solve the problem of of Myanmar's imminent economic collapse in a podcast, but they must be some idea of what what is feasible, like, is the most important question, I think, because this determines the dichotomy of investigation. Is it possible, even theoretically, for Myanmar, following the coup, to rebuild the economy and to catch up with with the Southeast Asian community, in terms of economy and in terms of development, without external training, support and funding?
Zach Abuza 1:24:49
They would get that support and funding. You know, I go back to think about where the country was in 2008 2009 And what was achieved the technical assistance provided by Japan, the EU, the United States, you know, the role of the private sector played out. Myanmar will rebuild from this, but but to be very clear the coup, and the policies since then have reversed 1012 years of positive economic growth. And that's going to it's going to take a while for the country to catch up. I am confident that with good leadership that are committed to the country's long term economic growth, the goodwill of the donor community, that that and just the desire of the people of Myanmar, to reverse you know, this these last few years with the junta I think that the country can can rebound. But, you know, one point I've been trying to make is that, for the hunter, the their greatest liability right now, is the economy. You know, yes, they're losing militarily. But their real liability is the economy, because they were hoping that you would have enough people in the urban middle class, who would basically, except the coup not put up much of a fight, as long as there was sustained economic growth. And that's just not true. People are losing their savings. Because of the collapse of the economy, they are losing their opportunities to send their children to universities abroad, they are losing opportunities to engage in business. They're watching their savings get depleted because of inflation and the devalue chat. Businesses that that were agnostic on politics, that thought, well, we can do business with the military. We know how they do business, we know they're corrupt, but at least it's it's somewhat predictable. None of those things are true. You know? It's the military has to be very concerned that people they assumed would accept the coup are really getting in their own wallets by the
Brad 1:28:28
treasurer strange thing we're trying to get into the mind of the military themselves, right. And none of this makes sense. To most of us to URI or anybody else, much of what has transpired, not everything, but much of what has transpired was reasonably evident. I did not believe. Even Sunday, I went to bed on Sunday, the 31st of January 2021. confidence that the new parliament was going to be sworn in. Obviously, I was following the events. But I was confident it was going to happen because I knew that the military controls key ministries. I knew that the military has complete autonomy. I knew that the military is free of oversight. I knew that the military controls MEC and me HL and therefore, basically monopolizes the entire economy for their own benefit. And I knew that the military was able to get away with a genocide without attracting any negative flak because they're able to throw a puppet civilian government to the international community's lions and watch on Suchi try to walk that tightrope. While most people in the West didn't even know who min Aung Hlaing is. And the idea of throwing all of that out of the window. Just so that mean a lion could sit on the throne and and you know, pretend to be president was so out landish and so absurd that it never occurred to me that they could seriously be that stupid. And I know a lot of people, intelligent people who thought the same way and we were all proven terrifically wrong, like catastrophically wrong. In such a short space of time, Anthony Davis wrote an article in the first week of the coup, when he said, We are unlikely to see the bloodshed that was associated with a 1988. And the saffron revolutions, because the military has become more media savvy. And I also believe that the military, we're not going to give the international community the excuse of murdering civilians. And I was catastrophically wrong. So when we talk about trying to get into the mentality of the military, it's such a difficult thing to do. Because they don't seem to act rationally, they don't seem to understand that their actions are not going to be accepted by people that people are not going to lie down and take this because when you're starving, well, you know, you may as well fight, because you're gonna die of starvation, or you're gonna die being shot, but one of these might secure a slightly better future for your children. So, I don't know, I've wanted a bit of a tangent there, but it just it just is, is there any chance that the military is actually going to really wake up and understand the genuine situation they find themselves in? Or are they still living in a deluded bubble? And are unpredictable?
Zach Abuza 1:31:35
Yeah, they certainly do live in a bubble and a little bubble in their fortress capital. That is so shut off from the rest of the country. They their actions really were irrational to so many of us. And as you described, you know, they had control of three key ministries, they controlled their budget, they controlled their promotions and appointment had full autonomy, they got away with a genocide. They have these two conglomerates that dominate the economy. I mean, they had 25% of Parliament. And yet that wasn't enough for them, they really felt threatened. whether, you know, the NLD was getting close to 75%. We know that in 2019 2020, the NLD was trying to amend the Constitution in a number of different votes, and they never got there. But certainly after the November 2020, elections, they were getting a lot closer. And that made the military nervous. When they made the decision to stage the coop, they were basing it on several assumptions. And I would make the case that many of those assumptions were were flawed. But they assumed that the population would demonstrate for a couple days, maybe a couple of weeks, but would come to terms and accept it. They were never expecting a multi year civil disobedience movement. They never predicted that the N ug would stand up, or that the they would be able to raise these 500 or so PDFs around the country who would actually fight and and do okay and control territory. They never assumed that there could be a working relationship between a bourbon lead and you g and the different era rose. They only thing they really assumed correctly was that the international community would not put that much pressure on them. They assumed that ASEAN would be divided and do very little. They assume some countries would look the other way just for the sake of economic growth. They assumed that they would get the support of China and Russia and India. And they assume that countries like America would have token sanctions but not much else. It was their assumptions about the international context that that proved correct, but boy they got every other assumption fundamentally wrong. They assumed that they would be As stewards of the economy, they never predicted that they would run it into the ground the way they did. So why did they make so many flawed assumptions? And it comes back to the bubble? That these minimum clang so when are surrounded by sycophants who tell them what they want to hear, not the truth, they are living in a fact free environment. No one is giving them the honest assessments, what's happening. And they're happy to rule the country and run it into the ground because they think it is their birthright to do so.
Brad 1:35:55
I mean, it's so good assessment of the military's mentality. And unfortunately, it's it's something that we've it always comes back to this, it always comes back to this mandate of heaven. Exceptional. Men Tell me we talk about the political philosophy of American exceptionalism, that, that because America is different. America can do things that other countries just can't do. But that is, that's not even the same. Ballpark, it's not even the same sport, as Dumbledore, exceptionalism, this idea that, by the grace of divine providence, they invade alone, defend the country, and they and they alone can make decisions for the country. And they have a almost this childish rage and sense of offense, that anyone would dare to question or challenge the authority that evidently was bestowed upon them by a higher power. There's, there's this petulant hatred of anyone who questions them because they are in charge, because they've always been in charge. And they're always meant to be in charge, it's it's difficult to try to rationalize and understand people who operate like this, because in order to maintain this worldview, they necessarily have to be divorced from reality. And they have to be divorced from concerns over the health of the economy and the welfare of the people and the sustainability of of what it is they're doing in the country. Because that would mean that there are concerns that are greater than the preservation of their own privileged status. It's it every time we have a conversation, it just seems to boil down to this fundamental concept that they're in power because they're in power, and they will continue to fight for it. Because they feel entitled to it. So is there is there any hope that they're actually going to walk away from power? Is there any hope for them to not try to go down in a blaze of gunfire and destroy as much of the country as they can? In the process? Is there any hope for not a peaceful resolution, because we're too far for that, but at the very least, for the high command to reach a point where they say, You know what, we'll quietly go into exile in China and Russia. And we'll walk away as long as you guarantee us amnesty. Like can we can we hope for that to happen? Cheese. I I noticed you've gone offline, by the way. Like my thing is showing that you're offline.
Zach Abuza 1:38:55
What do you mean offline?
Brad 1:38:57
So looking at the Zen caster, like next to your name, I've got a red tag that says that you're offline.
Zach Abuza 1:39:02
No, it says green, green, check my book. So let me go back to the point I was making before middle Tang is not going to gracefully bow out. I could see him really try to pursue this election strategy. And other hard line even more hardline generals like so when kind of say you're nuts, why would we ever go back to anything democratic? We need direct military control. We're not going to adopt the Thai model. I could see kind of an internal push that you know where someone like Min Aung Hlaing is put out to pasture and the guys who who say we've been too soft, what we really need to do is show the PDFs what we're made of and really unleash their forces and and the brutality on population if if that's even possible. But I have no doubt that there are a bunch of absolutely psychotic, hardline generals that think, middle unkindness been too soft on on the opposition that things have gone too far. And the new G is is is gaining too much strength. I could imagine an absolute orgy of violence after that happening and things getting much worse before that kind of small hardline cabal false. That's one scenario. But I would go back to the point I was making before, of kind of those junior generals, the Colonels who are in charge of running the score, basically saying this is absolutely unwinnable, and seeking some negotiated settlement to preserve their ill gotten gains, to try to preserve some of the military's privileged position in politics in society, the economy, though, they certainly don't deserve it. So I just I wish there was a clear pathway to getting middle and trying to retire to China, just I've not seen it yet.
Brad 1:42:12
I mean, that's unfortunate, but probably quite a realistic assessment. So I think I think we've quite a quite a broad range of topics. So as he's, as he's our customer, I just like to invite you to, to leave the audience with any thoughts that based on our conversation today, or based on any other topics that we didn't have time for, you would like them to consider and mull over as they go about their day.
Zach Abuza 1:42:43
You know, this year is going to be a really important one, we're coming up on the second anniversary of the coup. And the international community has a very short attention span, they're going to move on to the next crisis. And so it's so hard to keep Myanmar in the news, in the attention of policymakers around the world. You know, after the execution of CO Jimmy and the other three activists, you know that there was there was just no response other than, you know, verbal condemnation, no new rounds of sanctions. And I really worry that the international community is starting to drop the ball and pay less attention to Myanmar. I'm, as I said earlier, I'm very concerned that as fraudulent as elections next summer may be that it will be good enough for many countries, and they will begin to normalize this regime. It's going to be hard for the energy to continue to maintain their level of support from the people within the country from the diaspora community around the world. Especially if we head into a global recession that will impact the resources. So you know, we're in for a critically important year. Coming up. We'll see whether Indonesia rises to the challenge and is going to lead ASEAN more effectively than Cambodia did. I certainly hope so. But It's very important that the N ug remain focused that they really start to put together their constitutional convention to continue to hold that alliance together, knowing that the military is going to try to peel off this er rows one by one. So there are huge challenges coming up this year.