Transcript: Episode #235: At the Crossroads of Conflict
Below is the complete transcript for this podcast episode. This transcript was generated using an AI transcription service and has not been reviewed by a human editor. As a result, certain words in the text may not accurately reflect the speaker's actual words. This is especially noticeable when speakers have strong accents, as AI transcription may introduce more errors in interpreting and transcribing their speech. Therefore, it is advisable not to reference this transcript in any article or document without cross-referencing the timestamp to ensure the accuracy of the guest's precise words.
Host 0:21
Do you know that our nonprofit better Burma has its own shop, which also sells crafts sourced from Artisan communities across Myanmar. Each piece is unique and handmade and reflects the country's amazing diversity. Not only that, your purchase will not only support the artists themselves, but also help fund our wider humanitarian and media missions. Please take a moment to visit our shop at a local crafts.com That's al okay a crafts.com.
Brad 2:03
And welcome back. My guest today is Peter Morris, who is described in his bio as a lawyer, a journalist and an aspiring linguist who has written an article in the diplomat, which I would say is well worth reading. It's entitled why the US needs to back Myanmar spring revolution. And it is a rare piece of very direct, very confrontational statement of needs towards Western requirement. So Peter, would you like to introduce yourself? And we can talk about this article a little bit?
Peter Morris 2:37
Hi, yeah, thanks. I'll take that as a compliment. confrontational. So, my name's Peter Morris. I'm a lawyer and journalist. And yeah, I'm an advocate for Burma. And so that that causes challenges sometimes, because I'm, you know, when you're a journalist, you in theory, you're supposed to be unbiased. And when I started writing the latest piece that you mentioned, it was, it was kind of unclear whether it was like a regular news piece, or an op ed. And then the editors I was working with, they're like, Okay, we got to do this as an op ed, and you got to cut it down. So I had to restructure it. And then of course, when you cut things down, it takes forever to cut it down and summarize everything. So it took me like a month to finish this thing. But I'm glad that I got you know, support and from the patient, editor at diplomat strange yo.
Brad 3:42
I am by by happenstance, I do happen to have a little bit of experience I also had an op ed published in in the diplomat, I was fortunate enough to share that distinction. And you know, I have to I have to agree with you i The team at the diplomat actually very good, very professional and and met very minimal sort of edits on the content of of my work. So I had very, very positive experience with them. But yeah, so let's jump into the meat of this because this is something that I and some other people have been sort of talking about that various sort of lack in the reportage when it comes to Myanmar people are not really focused on it and those who are trying to write about it are not really going into depth. You hear you cite quite a few people I mean, you cite you know, Matthew Arnold's episode with insight Myanmar, you you cite David Matheson, you you cite me me when but you cite quite a few people. And you provide the links to strengthen your argument and you're making clear geostrategic arguments along the way. So, that being said, let's just take a step back from you know, the As to support Myanmar. Let's, let's let's look at the situation as it stands. How do you perceive the situation in Myanmar right now? What do you think is going to happen in the coming months in the coming years?
Peter Morris 5:16
Yeah, so, you know, I think the spring revolution is on the verge of winning. But we just don't know how long it's going to take. And, you know, Anthony Davis, in a piece that he wrote, talked about black swan events, which, for my understanding is just kind of something that's bound to happen. But but we don't know exactly what's going to happen, you know, maybe someone will, like assassinate the middle line, or maybe there'll be like a huge victory or defection or whatever. I think that that is going to happen pretty soon, or what will happen is, there's just this kind of snowball effect has already started, right, especially after 1027, where you get, you know, one surrender or defection, and then that leads to another one. And I, it seems like the word is going around the junta soldiers that that, you know, the WHO does is not doing well. And that's MCs, the soldiers who have already had low morale since like the beginning, even have lower morale and more. Be more willing to give up. And I think, I don't know if you saw that just yesterday, I saw something about the junta put an article in one of its newspapers saying like, Oh, actually, we're not losing. So I think it's only a matter of time. And, and I, I mean, I, honestly, I don't know how useful of an exercise it is to try to pinpoint an exact date. Maybe, I think it's more useful to say like, okay, relatively near future, and so that, therefore, we got to start planning now, that's the whole point. And, and, and that was like, one of the main points of the articles like, I was trying to, you know, inform us policymakers, it's like, hey, look, spring revolution is on the verge of winning, they're going to win relatively soon. So we got to think about what to do, you know, at the very least, you got to ramp up humanitarian aid. Because that will expedite that, by itself will expedite the fall of the junta, because it'll free up resources that are currently being used by resistance organizations to, you know, feed and house, all these refugees and injured people and everything.
Brad 7:53
Absolutely, and I liked that you bring up Anthony Davis, which I assume most of our readers would be familiar with. Me, he's quite, quite well known. He's he's quite prolific. And what I really liked about him is that he was actually quite negative towards the prospects of the revolution. Early on, if you if you read somebody's pieces back into that, remember, yeah, I remember. And so he's come around, and he's changed his opinion. And as as new evidence has come to light, and as situations have shifted, so it's, I look at him as a case of a person who isn't saying that the revolution is, is doing well, because he's a fanboy of of the revolution, and has been one. This is this is someone who's looking at facts, and has had to change his perspective. And that's, that's the main responsible and mature thing. So it's, it's really good that we have, you know, people like you, and people like Matthew Arnold and a series of other people lately, who are coming on saying, this revolution is is going to win, like, we don't know, when we don't know how, but it's going to happen. But then, so this is then that the devil's advocate question, which I'm sure a lot of people would be pondering if the revolutions victory is assured. Why then, is it so important for outsiders to get involved? I mean, if you know if the race is almost over, right, why bother at this point?
Peter Morris 9:16
Well, that's a that's a good question. I mean, one thing is that logistically, at the very least, we need Thailand's help. Right. So and then I just thought today, you know, thank goodness, Thailand is starting to take the lead on humanitarian aid efforts. Now, of course, they're, they're like, try, you know, the first thing they did was, oh, let's work with the junta on humanitarian aid. But you know, what, the second thing they they did was, I just thought today, they said, Oh, we want to set up a kind of humanitarian relief effort through often, which sounds pretty good to me. I mean, at least it's better than going through the junta.
Brad 9:55
I mean, the irony we saw a year ago or a little bit more way And when people were sending aid to Myanmar, but because it was going through junta channels, then aids you're sending is being sold off in markets to raise money for the military to continue perpetuating the crimes that we're trying to alleviate. It's It's absurd. So thank God that there's been a shift in policy. And actually, Chinese policy as well, I want you to quickly comment on, because you do talk about Chinese policy. And you do give a couple of reasons for that. But they seem to be shifting as well.
Peter Morris 10:35
Yeah, so actually, so I thought I saw today something about China. Mentioned errant mentioning humanitarian aid corridors, that I could be wrong. I don't remember seeing anything about that before. But if, if that's true, that's a that's a great sign. I mean, if China could somehow cooperate on that. So yeah, but aside from that, I mean, my general impression is, is that the China is just confused about what to do, because it has like all of these, you know, competing interests. And, you know, one example of this confusion I saw today, news about the, the Chinese ambassador, he so he published an article published an article in the in the junta mouthpiece, global new light of Myanmar. Oh, well, that was, oh, wow, this is dated January 11. By I just, I just thought today. Anyways, he published an article saying says we have to work towards the, you know, the shared community with a shared future or something, some some kind of BS like that. I mean, what what I mean, how was that? What, I don't know what the what the purpose of doing that is, you know. And they went out of their way to do it.
Brad 12:14
That's the that's the thing with China is that we have to remember that, whatever the Chinese do, they do for a purpose like that there was an intention behind it. They know what the audience is. Right? Even if it's sometimes difficult, and so putting it into global new light. Yeah, that that in and of itself is pretty bold, because that's communicating directly to the military and their supporters. Right,
Peter Morris 12:38
right. Yeah. That's a good point. Yeah. I mean, I mean, maybe, I mean, maybe, maybe I should say that, that I mean, yes, they do it for purpose, but they The problem is that they have competing interests, right. Like I said earlier, like, uh, you know, on the one hand, you know, they want to build this corridor to the Indian Ocean. But on the other hand, they need stability to do that. And they've realized by now that the junta cannot provide them with a stability. So that's one of the reasons why they tacitly supported Operation 1027. And now they just, they just, they don't know what to do, because they're kind of stuck, because it's like, okay, I'm living. Let's, if they assume that, okay, the junta is going to fall, then that means, you know, a Democratic leaning regime is going to be set up, and they don't want that either. So, so they have all these competing interests. And and you know, that the recent suppose would cease fire, which broke down right away. Surprise, surprise that that's also kind of an evident evidence, which shows that they just kind of policy confusion, they don't really know what the best way forward what the best way forward is. Because I mean, if if what is the I mean, okay, the point, I guess, the point of doing a ceasefire, is that have stability in northern Myanmar? Right. But, I mean, just because you have stability in northern Myanmar, doesn't mean you can have stability anywhere else in Myanmar. And then and industries hard didn't even work. So they don't even have stability at Northern Myanmar.
Brad 14:18
I mean, those ceasefires themselves are a fascinating topic that I've, I've been spending the last couple of days trying to reach out through back channels to get as much information on them as I can. Yeah, and the word that I'm getting from a lot of people who are commenting, you know, unofficially, but who are much, much more in the know than I am, is that, well, why why would you even pay these ceasefires? You know, any mind? Why would you give them the time of day, like we all know that there was going to be some notional ceasefire, put on the table and that it was going to, you know, fall apart reasonably quickly, and it was never intended to actually last. It's all just sort of part of the dance. And so, there's, there's a perception from the ceasefires like people look at the ceasefires and They look at China, you know, putting his hand up saying like, look at us like we're brokering, peace and negotiation and but deep down when you when you look at what's going on on the ground, it doesn't really seem to be changing things. It just it sends a message by, like on this broader Chinese scope. I'm glad that you mentioned the Indian Ocean. Because in your article you specifically talk about the Strait of Malacca, I think you refer to it as the Malacca dilemma. And so for those who are not aware that the Strait of Malacca is a very, very, very heavily utilized shipping lane, I think on the south of Malaysia, and it's one of the vital choke points that if it were closed to Chinese shipping, would effectively stop the Chinese, whose ports are all east of the Malay Archipelago, from being able to transit to west of the Malay Archipelago into the Indian Ocean and through the Indian Ocean to Africa and the Suez Canal and Europe and so on. And the Chinese have been very, very, very concerned over the possibility that their ability to transit through the Malay Archipelago could in the event of escalating tensions or conflict, be cut off from them. And they have desperately be looking for a solution to circumvent the Malay Archipelago so that they can get around and access the Indian Ocean. In another way, the port of Rangoon now Yangon historically has been one of the largest ports outside of North America. And, you know, one on one, make two and the Chinese have realized this. So how much do you think the Chinese a really sort of thinking about utilizing the infrastructure that Myanmar offers west of the Malay Peninsula into the Indian Ocean? In in their foreign policy in their changing attitudes? Because you talked about stability? It seems like they don't really care who's in charge, they just care that they can operate in Myanmar. Right,
Peter Morris 16:57
right. And of course, everyone says that everyone notes that the, you know, China had good relations with the government under Aung San su chi, and that they made some progress on the China Myanmar economic corridor. And so yeah, I mean, China is definitely obsessed with with with finding and expanding as many routes they have. Which do not, which helped them avoid the mock straits. And, yeah, they've been obsessed with accessing Indian notions or Myanmar for a long time. And they're also trying to develop other ways around, you know, I think like the Russia and Central Asia, for example, that's another. I mean, like I said, in the piece, it's like, it's just a matter of degree like, the more the more routes, and the larger, you know, larger the larger these routes are, the faster these routes are that China has available to them, the more leverage they have over over the United States, and the less and conversely, the less leverage the US has to deter China from doing something stupid, like invading Taiwan, I mean, maybe in the eyes of China, it's not something stupid. But the reason I say it's stupid as because, you know, she's in pain, like, he, he's, as I said, an article, it's like he, he's, he's so obsessed with Taiwan, that he's on the verge of painting himself into a corner, or maybe he has already painted himself into into a corner. And I think that's what a lot of people are worried about, and what and now that he's in that position, it's like, what if what is he going to do? And he might come under pressure from these ultra nationalists in China to do something, even if he even if he doesn't want to, even if he thinks it's foolish, and that's what I mean by stupid.
Brad 19:19
And I agree with you. It's I mean, this is obviously very conjecture. But this is something that that seems to come up when a leader slowly transitions into a dictator. As I think we can reasonably uncontroversially Say Xi Jinping has and subsequently as they start to age, the the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, I am I am almost certain was driven mostly by Vladimir Putin needing to leave a legacy behind this obsession that a lot of these very powerful iron fisted leaders how legacy and give is a historically important seedy to Eastern slobs, and to Orthodox Christians and so on. And being able to take Crimea back was a big feather in his cap and being able to complete that would have been something that really, you know, cemented his role in, in Russia modern history, I have a fear that Xi Jinping, once the reunification of China and Taiwan to happen under his tenure, and he knows that there's only so long that he can, that he can hold on to power. Considering how he got rid of the other people in positions of power, he knows that that can happen to him. So it is it is conjecture, but I share your concerns, because I do I do think that these pressures very much exist. But sort of on that topic. And I know this is asking for conjecture, and it may not be in your wheelhouse. But when we talk about having access to Myanmar, Chinese access to Myanmar, we talk about having access to the Indian Ocean. The focus has been on trade. But it doesn't escape notice that China has increasing interests in Africa, some of them in very unstable areas, that Myanmar borders India, which is a direct rival of China, on the other side of which is Pakistan, a Chinese ally, Myanmar borders Thailand, who is notionally allied to the United States, is there do you think the possibility that China also wants to use Myanmar to project military power into Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean more broadly? Oh,
Peter Morris 21:31
yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. I mean, that's possible, like I'm sure that that I'm sure. They're hoping to to that, you know, maybe, you know, maybe they're hoping that at some point, some regime base in Myanmar who, regardless of who it is, what would allow them to do that. And then, of course, like you've got a lot of people say that these nominally civilian ports around the world that China has invested in and can like, easily be used for military purposes. So that might be part of Chinese thinking, as well. Yeah, it's certainly possible.
Brad 22:15
Because you, you quote, in your article, Mimi, when Byrd who, who actually has a military background, as saying that Myanmar is America's, quote, strategic blind spot, a largest strategic blind spot. So that's, you know, this is something that clearly needs more focus and needs more attention. And, and so this sort of segues on to a different issue, which is the reportage, you've you've come into this space, you've you've written this op ed, and clearly this is not your first article like you, you have a journalistic background, do you find that there is something sort of lacking in the general coverage in English language media as as regards Myanmar? Like, do you? Do you think that something is missing or that something more should be done to raise awareness and to get information into the hands and the heads of the people who need to have it?
Peter Morris 23:10
Oh, yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I think, um, yeah, I think the English language media doesn't really have the resources to get information. Um, you know, unlike the Burmese newspapers, they got like people on the ground inside Myanmar. That's that, you know, for the, for the, for the Western newspapers, it's a lot harder for them to, I mean, yeah, they, okay, they can work with Burmese people, the they have Burmese people working for them, but it's just a lot. They just don't have the resources to do that. And so one example is like, even the New York Times, which, you know, probably has the most resources out of any English language publication in the world, maybe I don't know about that. But they have a lot of resources and yet, how long did it take them? To write that story? What is it called the country that bombs its own people remember that title? Yeah. So that that was just like, basically an expose a of the junta of scorched earth tactics of bombing innocent civilians, burning down villages, and all this stuff that just the kind of terror tactics that they used to scare civilians into, into giving up support for the revolution or putting pressure on the resistance forces to give up or something like that. So but that it took them a long time to publish that and I was upset about it. And when it finally came out, I posted a link to that article on on social media and then in a comment to that link. I said something like, Well, why did why did it it take so long for the New York Times to do this. I mean, yeah, when you're a journalist you want to, like make sure to get, you know, credible sources and double check, and maybe triple check and all that. But But I mean, I think what they did in that article was was they used satellite images and okay, you that that's good, but like, why not use oral testimony from people whose houses were burned down or that was subject to bomb or something like that? I mean, oral testimony is just as valid of a piece of evidence as anything else. I mean, it just, it was both a law and in journalism, it's like, it's a valid piece of evidence. And the key question is just like, how much weight do you give? The evidence? Yeah, how much weight? Do you give the evidence it so people can people can judge for themselves. So like, for example, if they got, let's say, they got to, like, let's say they got three people from the same village that burned down, they all said, okay, yeah, these junta people came in, they burned down our village, to if I was, you know, a writer, I would say, Okay, that's enough. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough evidence to publish a story, saying, hey, the junta is burning down villages, to terrorize people. And they could have a New York Times could have done that a long time ago, but it took but for some reason, they, they they didn't I don't know. I don't know what what, why not.
Brad 26:37
So I found I found the actual New York Times article you're talking about it was published halfway through 2023. So the actual publication date is July 31 2023. The article is called the country that bombs its own people, in case anybody wants to look it up. And yeah, it's kind of strange. They've got quite like they've got good footage. So the article itself, I think, is quite well done. The footage that they've got is is very relevant, and not footage that has just been circulating on social media. Everywhere, it's they've clearly done quite a bit of research here, they've got some really good images as well from the ground. So you at least respect to them for for doing that, and for writing this article and putting it together. But again, I agree, as you say, halfway through 2023 is two and a half years into into the conflict and the military would wanting people fall before that. So I yeah, I do take your your point. But so then let's you know, let's just try to do our jobs of spreading this information as much as we can. So your piece, your op ed here is is fundamentally making an argument you're trying to make the argument for why should the West get involved? So I'm going to ask them in ethical terms, I think everyone who's listening to this podcast is already 100%. Behind us, we understand the ethical argument, and we could probably make it in our sleep. But let's move to an economic argument. What is the economic argument for Western involvement in Myanmar in support for the revolution?
Peter Morris 28:24
Economic argument? That's a good question. Um, well, I mean, let's, let's assume that the, you know, the revolution wins, and a new democratic government is set up, what would you know, foreign companies, foreign governments, what would they be looking for this time around? Because they know, they kind of made a bunch of mistakes last time around. And they also know that, you know, it's not a kind of paradise in terms of profiting at least in the short term. So I think that they'll probably be more of a focus on infrastructure type investment. And for that reason, I think Japan will probably play a big role. I mean, they've always played a big role in in Burma. And I think, and that's like, one of the reasons I'm actually based in Japan now is to try to work on on or, you know, Japan's Myanmar policy. So, yeah, I think I think and I hope that that infrastructure will be a priority. And then also things like education and health and stuff like that. Yeah. Sort of the I mean, it's the I mean, it's a kind of thing that's more of a long term pipe payout. Right. But yeah, I don't know. I mean, it's a really good question. It's really requested. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah.
Brad 29:54
Because I think we do need to engage corporate interest as well, in order to do that, and then, so let's, let's then also recap, what is the sort of strategic things we've spoken a lot about China, and the sort of threat that inaction on Myanmar poses. But what do you think is the is the strategic political gain? That Western powers I mean, your focus is the United States that the United States could could gain by coming in by overtly supporting the the national unity government, the revolution, and, and assisting in some capacity in the transition to a democracy.
Peter Morris 30:34
Oh, okay. Um, what can I just make one final point about your last question? Yeah, please, please. Okay, so, so first of all, I'm not much of an economist, but I know that Japan likes to do these public private partnership. Projects. Okay. And so, maybe for that reason, maybe companies, at least Japanese companies will be eager to get involved. Because they can get contracts from Japanese Government. Right. So um, but maybe, who knows, maybe other countries will have a similar type of model. So So that's just one thing to note for, for? If we I mean, in other words, at the very least, we can attract Japanese companies. So yeah, so that's that. And then the other thing about right, strategic benefit? I mean, yeah, I mean, like I said, one strategic benefit is is sort of deterring Xi Jinping from doing something foolish on Taiwan. But I think at all I mean, having, the more leverage, the US is able to maintain visa vie, China. I, I think the less sort of misadventure ism, China will engage in and I'm thinking in particular, encroaching on neighboring countries and contested areas in South China Sea and stuff like that, like they did. I mean, China has been, you know, having from the Indian perspective, China has been encroaching on India. You know, and then we've got the Philippines and and what else is there? I mean, their neighbors in particular, right. They've been very assertive lately, China.
Brad 32:39
Absolutely. And do you feel that, from the ASEAN perspective, is there is there a threat to ASEAN as a whole? If if Myanmar just sort of reverts back to this military dictatorship? Or or potentially, as we'll talk about in a little bit, if Myanmar were to disintegrate to some extent? Would I sound stand to lose from that?
Peter Morris 33:07
Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, and then, in fact, it I, once again, I was really glad to see that what Thailand has been doing lately, there was a, they had some kind of discussion at the World Economic Forum about Myanmar. And Thailand is clear that it wants to be a kind of leader and the humanitarian aid effort. And then they they explicitly said, you know, if Myanmar falls apart, it's going to affect the entire region. And, you know, I think Thailand sees the writing on the wall, that the regime is falling, and so they know that the number of you know displaced people and refugees and injured people is just going to increase because the junta has proven that as it gets more and more desperate to stave off its inevitable defeat. It just ramps up attacks on civilians, and even before operation 1027 Matthew Arnold the his statistics, were showing that two thirds of all junta attacks were against civilians, and it's just going to get worse and worse. And it's sad to say that there's going to be a lot more you know, civilian injuries and in displacement until the who does finally defeat it and that's why I really want to encourage countries to give humanitarian aid because that'll expedite the the downfall of home and and reduce the pain, pain and suffering to the extent we can you know, that the faster they follow, let the less suffering there will be and you know, Thailand It's not stupid to in Thailand, they know probably more than anybody, any country in the world, the situation in Myanmar. And so yeah, they see it, they see the writing on the wall and the fact that they're trying to do something about it now says a lot. And people might complain, like, oh, you know, Thailand is only working directly with the junta. And yes, that's not effective. But I think that Thailand, the only reason they're working with the junta on this is to kind of like save face for the junta. And meanwhile, they're making sort of alternative plans, such as through the they mentioned, you know, having a humanitarian aid operation, led by Ossian. So I mean, both China and Thailand, these governments are kind of playing this delicate dance where they try to save face for the junta for their, you know, suppose it ally, the junta, which they know is like, on the verge of being toppled, and so that, but they still have to pretend that they're, you know, friends and making, you know, agreement as a ceasefire or whatever. So that's what I think is going on here.
Brad 36:23
It's interesting. And one thing that I'm noticing from the the way that you're speaking, you're being very careful to focus on humanitarian aid. Are you? How do you feel about the prospect of of doing more than just delivering humanitarian aid, because very few people have been very willing to even countenance the possibility of what's generally referred to as lethal aid. But what about things like aid in forms of fuel, or in forms of vehicles, or things that could theoretically be utilized by the revolution? To do things more than just keep the starving people from dying of starvation? Keep the exposed people from dying of exposure, something that can actually actively increase the speed of the revolution? Where do you stand on that?
Peter Morris 37:17
Right? That's a really good question. I mean, yeah, a lot of people that I said, my article, too, they're like, Oh, you're calling for intervention. And this is gonna lead to proxy war. And like, who knows what war three or something like that? So I understand their concern. And yeah, I think it'd be a huge mistake for, for the US to send a bunch of weapons over there and, and do something silly like they did in the 1950s 50s with the KMT. But I think short of that there's, I think there's there's something that us can do besides humanitarian aid. I mean, at the very least, I think the US should distribute everything that was authorized by Congress in the Burma act. And actually, I haven't looked at what's in the permit act, but But I should, but it says, you know, non lethal aid, so who knows what that is, but then of course, there's another question. It's like, well, what, you know, how do you draw the line between lethal and non lethal aid? Right, like are bulletproof vests? lethal? or non lethal? I don't know. But one thing I want to note, is that, okay, yeah, maybe China got spooked after that. They found out the Burma Act was going to pass. But in fact, I mean, I I don't think that that was a real game changer. I think China just overreacted. And so what I guess what I'm trying to say is if the if the US tries to push it tries to push the limit just a little bit, you know, not sending like all these weapons, heavy weapons and turning it into some proxy war. I mean, me, you know, me and the energy and Myanmar, Myanmar people and ethnic groups and everything would not allow us to do a proxy war anyway. So that's off the table even if the US wanted to, which it can't it will even if it was willing and able which it's not it can't it's not willing to do it and it can't do you know, it's so stretched right now you guys can't do it. So but even if even if somehow us, Ronit was willing and able to do it to me, and my people would not let them okay. So, but I think there's there's some there's something at least the US can do. Above and Beyond humanitarian aid alone and at the very least distributing everything that's in, in in the Burma act. And yeah, I think they can push the limit just a little bit. And I don't know what exactly that means. I don't know, because I'm not a humanitarian aid specialist. I'm not a military person. I have no idea. But I think they can push the limit a little bit. And yes, it's a risk. Okay. We don't want to be naive about it. Yes, it's a risk. But I don't think it's a big risk, number one. And number two, I think it's a risk worth taking. Because we're, like I said, the, the faster. The junta is defeated, defeated, the less people will suffer. And, yeah.
Brad 40:37
So I find it very interesting that you, you brought up this concept of a proxy war. And I take your point that the United States is not inclined to and he's not capable of, you know, sending in a whole bunch of guns and bombs, and even if they wanted to the Myanmar people wouldn't not, would not stand for it. But just just following this, this hypothetical, focusing on the Chinese angle, if if we're talking proxy war, I mean, the United States, typical proxy war opponents would be China or Russia. Now, Russia is very much tied up in Ukraine, and from what we're hearing, they're not in a position to support the hunter, even though they otherwise normally would. They just don't have the free resources to deal with it right now. And Chinese policy, as you yourself have been writing about, has shifted to understanding that while the hunter doesn't really represent the stability that China needs, and as you also mentioned, in your article, the scam centers, when we interview Jason tower, you know, the numbers that he gave us were absolutely horrifying. We're talking about something in the scope of 150,000 people being kept as slaves in Myanmar, many of them Chinese nationals. So that being the case, the neither the Russians nor the Chinese seem to be inclined to actively support the junta Are you of the mind that if the West were to try and ramp up its operations in Myanmar, that could trigger a change in attitude from China?
Peter Morris 42:08
Oh, yeah. I mean, and that's, that's why I mentioned like the limit, you know, I think the US can push the limit. And especially because China has lost faith and the junta the junta can't provide the stability that China wants. So actually, it probably wouldn't mind if the, if the junta were to fall. And for that, for that reason, I think the US can push a limit. And like I said, I think it's a risk we're taking now. But of course, once you go over the limit, then China might do something. But but practically speaking, what what would China do? You know, I mean, why they're going to arm like, are they going to arm the junta? I don't know. I doubt it. I mean, they, yeah, they are arming the junta. But are they going to increase their arming of the junta? Are they gonna send Chinese troops in there? I mean, I doubt it. And this is why I'm saying it's not a huge risk.
Brad 43:11
I mean, I think that's a good point. But this sort of segues us to another issue. So the the Chinese have a lot of influence over certain ethnic armed organizations, most notably the United State army. Now, the the interesting thing is, and this came from discussions that I was having quite a while back, where someone was commenting to me that, well, what if you went back a few decades? And you said, Oh, well, you know, a few 100 Assault Rifles fell off the back of a truck in China, and they wound up in Myanmar, that would kind of be par for the course. But these days, if a consignment of weapons winds up across the border, in the hands of an ethnic organization, that is not because some, you know, quartermaster sergeant was trying to make a couple of dollars on the side, he'd be facing a firing squad for that, like someone higher up had to approve that sort of a shipment. And so we see direct involvement, and again, with with interviews that that we've done with Jason tower, like talking about how much the evidence shows that the Chinese have influence over these groups. This brings us to the question of the potential disintegration of Myanmar. Do you think that there is a possibility that as the military is pushed back towards NATO, or potentially fully collapses? You have a lot of these groups, let's say groups in the northeast, that are being directly or indirectly supported by Chinese interests, who maybe want to start carving out their own version of the new Myanmar, and groups elsewhere in the country who look at that and go, well, we don't want to fall under that type of external control. We have a different vision for the country and the country fractures Is that something that we have to be very conscious of as we try to assist in the revolution not to sort of tip the scales into a situation that could lead to that sort of fragmentation.
Peter Morris 45:09
Yeah, I mean, that definitely is a risk. You know, we don't want to ignore that risk. But you know, I just think that the, the, the resistance is so unified, that they'll, they'll be able to figure it out, basically. You know, it's a cliche, but where there's a will there's a way, and I believe that the, the consensus, the, you know, overwhelming majority of people in Myanmar want to establish a genuine federal Democracy Now, what that means in practice, who knows, but I don't think it the country will will fracture. I mean, I think the key question, I think a lot of it will boil down to how much the big sticking points are, will be how much control over taxation and revenue from resources, local resources do the local states have? And then of course, like, who gets their own state? You Palong they probably want their own state. And then, you know, maybe, maybe other groups have their own state that yes, that's a problem. But I think they'll be able to sort it out, like I said, Where there's a will there's a way I mean, people are concerned about Rakhine, right? Wanting to have a kind of a war type of how do you call that state within a state? Yes, yeah. So people concerned about that. And then if that happens, maybe other groups will want it, but I don't know. i My understanding is, is that the Rakhine or willing to sort of play along? And, and Istat? Because they know that that there'll be stronger by as a country working together with the other? Will the other groups and the other states?
Brad 47:35
I think that's a very sort of positive assessment, we very much hope that that is going to be the conclusion that everyone
Peter Morris 47:42
Well, the reason I say that I mean, I mean, one of the reasons I say that is not just like wishful thinking, or not just like, being positive and all that, although, yes, generally speaking, I'm I'm I guess, I'm a positive kind of person. But so we have to take that into consideration. But one of the reasons I say that is that I've been to, you know, fundraising events around the world, in a few different countries around the world, where you have members of the diaspora from many different ethnic groups coming together, and and you know, donating money, their hard earned money to the revolution. And I mean, a lot like in the States, for example, I know that the, a lot of the refugees are do not have high incomes, and yet they're still sacrificing a lot and giving a large portion of their income to the spring revolution. I mean, the diaspora is basically the one that's funding the entire revolution. And, and they're doing it together. You know, there's a lot I think most of the most of the events that I know of, for in the diaspora to raise money are kind of like, you know, Myanmar wide events like it, you know, everyone is invited. Like, even they're even there. I went to a chant event here in Japan recently and and yeah, I mean, a lot of non chin people were there and yeah, I mean, the the only these days, I think the only events were that were that were it's like, ethnic group specific or like religious events, and they don't raise money at these those events anyways. So there's, there's a lot more unity than people realize, and I have evidence to prove it. I mean, I've been to these events. I talk to these people in Burmese, and they tell me, you know, we want to win the revolution. We want to set up a democracy. Nobody says like, oh, we want to win the revolution and set up you know, an independent current state or an independent Rakhine State and I haven't even heard that there. They're really keen about sort of establishing a unified Myanmar.
Brad 50:12
I think that's, I'm really glad that you mentioned that it's, it's good to hear because there's a difference between, you know, someone sitting on top looking down going well, objectively, the country would be better off, you know, unified, and then maintaining its territorial integrity, which Yeah, from from perspectives of, of opportunities and economic growth is is just objectively true. But it's a very different perspective from the ground. So hearing, as you say, minorities within Myanmar, who have historically been the victims of the central authority, expressing the desire to maintain the unity of the country granted with with a federal democratic system and greater devolution of powers. But to maintain that, that unity of the country, I think, is a very important piece of information. And something that, again, needs needs to be given oxygen so that people know that it's not that all of the ethnic minority groups are just waiting for that opportunity to grab a bit of land and run off and design a new flag for themselves. It's, it really is a concerted effort to root out the military, which has been the root of all of the country's problems for the last 75 years.
Peter Morris 51:31
Right. And I, I guess one thing I'd like to say is I, I get the sense that the different ethnic groups from Myanmar have a sense of community, and not just within the diaspora, but back in Myanmar as well. And I mean, a lot of people that are in the diaspora just just recently moved to the States or wherever. So so we can't just say like, Oh, they're, you know, they've been Americanized or something. So, yeah, I mean, I don't know, like, maybe I'm maybe it's wishful thinking, Maybe I'm being too optimistic. But but just that's just my belief, I think that they'll they'll find a way to pull off, it's not going to be easy. It's not going to be a walk in the park, you know, it's not going to be perfect, but I think they'll find a way to do it. And in fact, it might get ugly at times that you know, there might because there are weapons floating around, yes, some people might die, we have to we can't, you know, discount that risk, we have to take that risk seriously. But I don't think it's going to be a huge Civil War, and the country is going to disintegrate. I think that just plays into a kind of narrative, a very long standing narrative, which is based on facts, of course, but I just I don't think this narrative applies anymore. And I think I think people that overplay this narrative, are kind of falling into the kind of, like, a trope or or, or, or some kind of stereotype or even racist type of thing. I don't I don't know. But But I just in my opinion, I think they can pull it off.
Brad 53:13
I mean, I liked it. I like not only that you're seeing it, but that you're seeing it with genuine conviction, which is very different than hearing someone just saying like, well, you know, the information on the sheet of paper that I have in front of me indicates that that everything will be fine. But you're coming from actually having spoken to these people. And again, I think it's just vital, then that that message be hammered home so that people are aware of it. But you you have the the reality about you to note that, you know, the ticking time bomb is that this has been a protracted conflict. We are coming up now on the third anniversary of the revolution. And the weapons that have been obtained the weapons that were previously in storage that have now been distributed, and even the weapons that have now newly been manufactured as as the revolutionary forces have developed manufacturing capability of weapons. This is a country which to people who've never been in Myanmar, in the actual Bomar heartland. It is surprisingly demilitarized weapon ownership was not normal, you know, living there during the faux democracy, let's say from from the 2010 period onwards. It's the images that that some movies portray of, you know, armed soldiers on every street corner and people just occasionally being dragged off by secret police and stuff. That just wasn't the experience I've had or the experience of anyone that I know who lived there during that time. The proliferation of arms in a country that has not historically been that familiar With, with with weaponry. It is deeply concerning. But so here's my bigger question. Do you think that there is a fear on the part of of Western actors, that, hey, the situation is going to be messy, and there's no way to avoid the messiness. And if we get involved, and if we touch this, we are inevitably going to be tainted. Journalists are going to be asking us questions. Why did you back a movement that now has been associated with, you know, a rise in firearms violence or movement that has splintered into a couple of of groups that are going around and you know, doing bad things? And that fear of being associated with anything that is less than rosy and perfect? is stopping people from wanting to act for the greater good?
Peter Morris 55:51
Yeah, that's a really good point, especially in the context of the US, which has this terrible history in Southeast Asia, there's just a distaste for doing anything, even remotely similar to what all of the shenanigans the US did, and Indochina during that period. So that might be part of it. But of course, the US is has no qualms about doing crazy stuff, all of all in other parts of the world. But But yeah, you do raise a good point. And so yeah, I mean, that might be part of it. Yeah, that might be part of it. That might be one of the reasons why countries like the US are reluctant to get involved. But I mean, the what I would like to convey is what I just said earlier, about the unity of Myanmar people and their conviction, and they're passionate about overthrowing the, the junta and, you know, setting up a unified country. And I hope that policymakers in the US and other countries can get that message and not be so concerned that what that whatever they do to get involved is going to spark World War Three or something like that. I just don't think that's going to happen. That's ridiculous. These the era of these proxy wars, and at least between China in the US, I mean, I don't want to say it's over. But I mean, the proxy wars nowadays are between like US and Russia, US and Iran. Via Israel, but but, but US and China, I mean, not. I guess Taiwan is this proxy war, but I just, I don't, I don't. I mean, I guess Japan and the China conflict is they don't have a conflict. But yet, but I guess that's a project. I just, I don't envision a proxy war between China and the US over Myanmar, I just, I don't think it's gonna happen, a Thailand would not let it happen. And the people of Myanmar would not let it happen, which is more important.
Brad 58:07
Because this has been one of those consistent points that has come up since very early on in the coup. And I remember all the way back in 2021, when the focus was on the international community, and there was a very heavy focus on the United Nations, and specifically the Security Council, a lot of people were very hopeful. And you know, those who remember 2021 protest movements, there was a very heavy emphasis for a period of time on RTP, the Responsibility to Protect, which is a is a United Nations principle in law. And China consistently blocked along with Russia, China, either abstained or consistently blocked movements that that would have taken a more firm line on on Myanmar. And so there was this, this thinking that the Chinese are not going to let anyone encroach on their doorstep, they're not going to let anyone else get involved in a country that they neighbor, either they are going to get involved. Or they're going to let the situation play out as it plays out, and then deal with the result. But they don't want anyone else getting that close. And I think that's where a lot of the concept of this proxy war possibility has been, has been coming from but once again, as you've pointed out, and as others have pointed out, that you've cited, Chinese attitudes towards the junta have shifted. And yeah, it's not as likely that the Chinese would act or at least that seems to be what I'm hearing you.
Peter Morris 59:39
Right, right. Also, yeah, and also, I mean, the era of the US doing crazy shit in in Myanmar is over. I mean, I, the people who are the most alarmed about a proxy war that I've talked to among my friends, come from an earlier era. right where the US did all kinds of crazy crap in Southeast Asia, including supporting the, these cam t, you know, gangsters running around Shan State and stuff like that. And so I can understand where they're coming from. But in my opinion, I mean, I'm getting old now, too. I'm not but I wasn't around back then. But but but in my opinion, it's just not going to happen. There may not allow that to happen.
Brad 1:00:27
Which I think that's actually a separate factor, but one that I think in a lot of historical cases, we have a lack of agency being ascribed to the people themselves, like when we talk about, for example, the Vietnam War, it's the emphasis is usually on first the French and then subsequently, the Americans versus the Russian backed communists, they don't even necessarily thought of as Vietnamese people. They're thought of as communists, this outside influence and it's a narrative that often avoids talking about the agency that the Vietnamese people themselves had. In that conflict. And again, same same things when we're talking about Cambodia when we're talking about Laos, and Myanmar is a I mean, I don't want to use positive adjectives for Myanmar in this case, because we have seen almost three years of, of horrific human rights violations like this. There's nothing glorious about what's happening here. There's nothing uplifting about this, this is despicable, and it is an affront to the very concept of humanity. But it is also a case in which the people themselves with scant little international support, have managed to stand up and take on a very large and disgustingly overfunded military, from scratch, like people who have never been in the same room as a firearm in their lives, have have now in very short order, moved to the front lines, and have taken the fight to the military themselves like this is it's not unheard of, but it is it is the exception historically, rather than the rule. And I think, I think you're very on the on the point to bring up that the Myanmar people are not going to let international actors play a very self centered international geostrategic game. And they have proven over the last three years, that if they don't want something, they can make that thing not happen.
Peter Morris 1:02:36
Right, right. Yeah, exactly. And I mean, I think, after the success, all the successes that they've had, you know, going up against this powerful military, you know, with little help from the outside, largely on their own. I mean, it's, it's been an epic struggle, and I think that they're winning, and I think book, many books will be written about this struggle. And, you know, and women are involved even on, you know, on the front lines, as well, and as nurses and doing all kinds of other things, taking leadership roles. And so yeah, it's it's, I mean, it's the thing, it's a movement, it's a revolution, as, as Matthew Arnold was saying, so what were we talking about? Oh, yeah. So yeah, I mean, I love so I was saying that they're a lot more proud and have a lot more confidence after this, the spectacular successes that they've been having. And so for that reason alone, I think that they have the the strength and the smarts, to not let their country get dragged into some kind of crazy proxy conflict, that you're just not going to allow that to happen. And the best evidence to support this is this document that the new GE just released its China position paper, which said, like, hey, China, you know, don't worry about us, you know, I mean, basically, the underlying message is that don't Don't worry about us becoming a kind of Western puppet will will, you know, protect Chinese investments and Myanmar will help you crack down on the scamming industry and, and, you know, so they're just not gonna, they're just strong enough and smart enough not to allow their country to be dismantled by by, you know, torn apart by some proxy war. And, and so, an another point I want to make relating to this is that, you know, nowadays, countries around the world are very good and very smart, and they know how to play off the major power wars against each other in order to preserve their independence, number one, and number two, to extract as many benefits from both sides as possible, and Myanmar is no exception. And that's exactly why the new DJI released that document. And that's exactly why I think that there's not a huge risk of a proxy war. And okay, yes, there is a risk, we can't ignore that we can't be naive, but I don't think it's a huge risk. And I think it's a risk worth taking in terms of at least doing humanitarian aid, and maybe more.
Brad 1:05:43
Absolutely. And I think this this sort of brings us to, to the to the question of the future, and and what we can expect, because your article. I mean, it's, it's the, it's the length that these articles have to be because as you say, a lot of really valuable stuff gets gets caught and hacked and slashed, to fit it to format. But your article spends most of its time talking about what's going on right now, what could we be doing and then at the end of it, you, you touch on this idea, saying that the US, you know, in assisting the US would engender enormous goodwill among the Myanmar people and position itself as a key player in Myanmar's reconstruction and transition to democracy. And so, this is now that focus not on helping the revolution to win. But on the more important part and the part where historically Western powers have phenomenally fumbled the ball. You know, the the case that comes to mind, for me, for example, would be Afghanistan, when when the US funded the Afghans to fight against the Russian invasion, but then just sort of left the country, you know, littered with guns littered with unexploded munitions, and, and all of the ravages of war. And just just let it sort of fester and well, okay, we see that we see the results of that. It's that that after care, that that rebuilding that reconstruction, and that transition to stability, that's so important. Do you think first of all, now that we've spoken about the agency of of the people themselves, do you think that Myanmar people would welcome Western powers being involved in that?
Peter Morris 1:07:28
Oh, yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they, they still sort of admire, I guess you could say, countries like the United States that have a democracy, and they want to learn from the United States. That's why I've been asked to teach about constitutional law and federalism, I think they sort of see the US and other Western countries as a kind of model. Of course, I'm not going to copy the model. Exactly. And they'll come up with their own, you know, sort of system. But But I mean, if you ask them a normal person, would they prefer a kind of democracy based on a, you know, a real constitution? Not not not a military drafted constitution? I think 99% of the people in Myanmar would say, yes.
Brad 1:08:20
Well, that's ironic, because apparently 99% of people voted for the 2008. Constitution. Terry tells us all the time.
Peter Morris 1:08:27
Yeah.
Brad 1:08:31
In the middle of Cyclone Nargis, of course. So So would then Western powers, like what role do you think Western powers could or should play? To, to help the transition, but to not overstep the line and try to take over the show, but also to make sure that that things are transitioning as smoothly as possible? And as you you know, repeatedly say, with that emphasis on minimizing human loss during these periods of uncertainty?
Peter Morris 1:09:06
Oh, what kind of West? Yeah, that's a really good question. That's a really good question. I wish you know, I wish I was a little bit more knowledgeable about humanitarian aid and, you know demobilization and military type stuff. So, I mean, I'm just trying to think the best I can comment about that is maybe just sort of being available. If the new Myanmar government asked for something, you know, I'm saying that that that might be an interesting approach, rather than saying, Oh, this is what we're going to do. Just sort of, you know, be there in it and see what what, what what they need, you know,
Brad 1:09:51
okay, so it's more, it's more, you know, not not boots on the ground. And, you know, let's get in there and let's do the thing. It's more just keeping Your phone on loud and making sure that you pick up on a ring. And setting aside resources for this really is an interesting, I think it's an interesting approach. Do you think, though, that that's sellable? Because you know, I haven't been working in this space much. But the impression that I get very much when it comes to things like development projects is that vague does not get a tick, if you say, or we want to do something in the hopes that positive things can emanate, or we want to just, you know, hang around in case something goes on. People usually say, I'm not interested in something like that. What seems to get people excited is when you say I have a specific project, I plan to go to this place, I plan to do this thing. This is my timeframe. And that seems to be easier to sell. Because it's a specific project that has specific limitations, you know, how much it's supposed to cost? You can evaluate whether it succeeded or failed. Do you think you can sell this idea to governments to say like, I'm not asking you to do something specific. I'm just asking you to be ready.
Peter Morris 1:11:08
Right, right. Yeah. That's, that's a really good point. And, you know, I think David Matheson wrote a recent article, which says that amateurs do strategy and real leaders do logistics. And so maybe this shows that I'm not a real leader. But so I think you're right, that there should be something concrete. But I'm thinking, well, maybe us might sort of view this as an opportunity to not only help Myanmar, but kind of improve its ties with Thailand, because a lot of this stuff is going to go through Thailand. And yes, there's a kind of competition between China and the US and Thailand as well. And so maybe for that reason, US policy makers might get excited about, you know, having Myanmar rebuilding efforts, sort of go through Thailand, and yeah, but I mean, like you said, you're probably right, there should be a kind of concrete plan. And unfortunately, it's just, it's beyond my paygrade.
Brad 1:12:27
Fair enough. Yeah. So, I mean, we'll, we'll obviously have to see and obviously have to just, you know, continue trying to get accurate and correct information out there, in the hopes that that decision makers get access to it. But
Peter Morris 1:12:44
that being said, I think, I think like, basically, like, so one of the reasons I wrote that article and took the angle that I did is, is because like, basically, nowadays, the only way to get attention from policymakers in Washington DC is the ticker China angle, you know, for, for better or worse. That's, that's what you have to do. And I, I said that on Twitter recently, in response to Scott, Marcel Marcial, who's concerned about proxy wars, you know, emphasizing strategic issues and all that. And I said, Hey, Lucky, you know, for better or worse, this is what people this is the only thing people in DC agree on and what motivates them nowadays. And so that's, that's what you have to do if you want to get things done. And in fact, I think the China angle that I took is, is is valid. And so, yeah, in terms of rebuilding, maybe it's a similar type of thing. You know, advocates like myself, and, you know, try to tell us policymakers, it's like, hey, you know, maybe if we, you know, work together with Thailand, and maybe Japan to do these rebuilding efforts, and we can have, like, some kind of, you know, rebuilding center in, in Bangkok or something like, I don't know, and, and, you know, maybe allocate a certain amount of resources to in terms of money to that center, and then and then that money could be distributed. As the requests come in from from the new Myanmar government. Yeah. So that might motivate us. Policymakers. But yeah, like I said, above my paygrade.
Brad 1:14:32
Fair enough. I think, ultimately, that's, that's kind of a problem that we always, we always face, you know, even on in general, on this podcast, like, we have a lot of people come on who are very well informed, very educated, very knowledgeable, but nobody knows everything about everything, and nobody can predict everyone else's moves. So there's always going to be that limit of like, well, nope, I don't know what that but it's kind of like playing chess, where you can own We see about eight of the squares at any given time and you don't know where the other pieces are and, and what they're doing it, you know, the fog of war is, I think really a great hindrance to building up the accurate picture and making the right decisions at the right time. But nevertheless, all that being said, I think, I think it's a pretty, pretty robust overview of the of the situation and the prognosis. And again, I would encourage any of our readers to go and and read the original article, why the US needs to back Myanmar spring revolution will probably link it down below, on the diplomat. It is a good read. But I think you do listen to to our podcast, so you probably be familiar with it. But at the end of the episode, we we invite the guests to just share some thoughts that they'd like the audience to bear in mind as they go on about their day, or maybe as they talk to some of their colleagues. So if you have anything that that you think would be particularly useful for the people to think about, please do share it.
Peter Morris 1:16:00
Oh, okay. Um, yeah, I mean, maybe for the listeners in the diaspora, or, or if they're listening in Myanmar, I mean, I just want to say, like, you know, the revolution is going to win soon. Okay. So, but basically, we we still have to be patient that's going to be key. You know, not nothing good ever comes easy. Rome wasn't built in a day. I've learned that patience is so important in life. And so yeah, we there's a lot of momentum right now, especially after 1027. And yes, we want to capitalize on this momentum. But, you know, as as Anthony Davis pointed out in this article, we can't sort of overdo it. We don't want to rush too much. We still gotta be smart. I mean, the revolution have been smart all along all along very methodical, and planning all this out. So I think we just have to continue with the methodical planning and and just, yeah, just just be patient, I guess. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't mean like don't work hard. Yes, we got to work hard, but we can't expect things to happen, you know, as fast as we want them to happen. You know, we just have to try our best. Yeah, Joseph ah.
Host 1:18:04
Many of you know that in addition to running the insight, Myanmar podcast platform, we also formed a nonprofit, better Burma to respond to the terror that the Burmese military has been inflicting on the country and its people. We encourage listeners to check out our blog to see what work that Obama has been carrying out, along with the upcoming projects we hope to support. Right now, as I'm sure you all know, and today's interview only reinforced that the ongoing need is overwhelming. A donation of any amount goes towards those vulnerable communities who need it post. It will be so greatly appreciated. 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 in any form, currency or transfer method. Your donation will go on to support a wide range of humanitarian and media missions, aiding those local communities who need post. 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, refugee camps, monasteries and nunneries education initiatives, the purchasing of protective equipment and medical supplies COVID relief and 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 to a specific activity or project you would like to support, perhaps even something you heard about in this very episode. All of this humanitarian work is carried out by our nonprofit mission that are Burma. And your donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fun. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website betterburma.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause in both ways websites accept credit card. You can also give via PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we can take donations through Patreon Venmo, GoFundMe and Cash App. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either website for specific links to these respective accounts or email us at info@betterburma.org. That's betterburma. One word, spelled b e t t e r b u r m a.org. If you'd like to give it another way, please contact us. We also invite you to check out our range of handicrafts that are sourced from vulnerable artists and communities across Myanmar available at alokacrafts.com Any purchase will not only support these artists and communities, but also our nonprofits wider mission. That's aloka crafts spelled A L O K A C R A F T S one word a local crafts.com Thank you so much for your kind consideration and support.