Transcript: Episode #234: Beyond The Barricades
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 0:34
I'm really excited to bring you the upcoming interview with a very special guest. You'll hear him discussing all the great and courageous work that he's currently engaged in. And if you feel inspired to help him continue these efforts, please consider making a donation earmark for his projects. Or you can give a general donation that will support the wider movement in Myanmar. Our ongoing support has been so very helpful and appreciated by many Burmese struggling during these dark days. Simply go to insight myanmar.org/donation to contribute today or stay tuned at the end of the episode to hear more options now let's hear from that guest himself.
Host 2:28
We're joined on this episode of insight Myanmar podcast with EJ tett of freedom fighters. And I'm really looking forward to this interview, because we have a leader of a non violent movement in Myanmar that has continued to this day, we don't hear much about this, we, as our platform as well as other many other media out there have focused much of the attention on the change in at every level, really, of the violent resistance to the military regime and some of the rationale behind this and everything else that comes with this transition. And so this is a very important interview, one that I'm very excited and eager to have in exploring those that have continued on the ground and the frontlines in a non violent resistance and learning what they're doing, why they're doing it and the rationale and thinking behind I think we're gonna get a lot out of this conversation. Before we get there, we're gonna go a bit into as we often do on these interviews into the background and personality of our guests, EA Tet and learn about how he came, perhaps hesitatingly at times to this nonviolent movement, which he now very passionately advocates for. We'll learn a bit about his life as well. So yay, Ted, thank you for taking the time to join us and talk about yourself as well as your organization freedom fighters and the work that you're doing.
Ye Htet 3:58
Thank you for having me.
Host 4:01
So as mentioned, let's get into your story. First, your your pre cu life, which must seem like a different world for many of us now. You reference how you graduated from engineering school, and then transitioned into very diverse areas, business, finance, education, etc. As for many people, politics and activism for you did not come as I understand it until after the military coup. So before we get into how your world changed on February first 2021, tell us a bit about where you came from, how you grew up, what your interests were, so we understand you a bit more
Ye Htet 4:37
yeah, as you introduce our site completely away from the politics or the activities and feel. I somehow interested in the politics before bed mostly. I was in the other areas, like I graduated from engineering university, as you mentioned, and then my change I changed my career into other sectors, like education and consultation swag. Yeah. So before the coup, I was just focusing about education. And also I was learning about coachings and, and how to combine coaching into my education areas. So, so that was my passion then and then the cooks come. So yeah, in the beginning, like, we all are our shock, and also at the same time excited that we can be a part of a change. So, so yeah, we we are, we are seeing what we can do at the time. So I joined with some friends, some close friends, and then we have discussions on how we can contribute to the movement. And then yeah, gradually, I started involved into this non violence movement.
Host 6:01
Right. And you describe to me before how this journey into non violence that it was began with skepticism. I think that that's, that's not unusual for when someone is in a situation where there's real oppression and tyranny going on to think, How can this peaceful, nonviolent, humane way of behaving and being how can it possibly confront this, this tyrannical dictatorship? So describe a bit and flush out your thinking in terms of what shaped the skepticism took for you? And what your journey was like to answer some of these doubts? And skepticisms that you had?
Ye Htet 6:43
Yeah, it's like, in the, in the early periods of the coop, there were lots of massive protests, and civil disobedience movement happening. And every one thing that could make a change, bad for us, like when we are discussing in like small groups discussions, we don't believe how that we don't know how that will change, like, how many if many people walk on the street, like fill with fill the streets with human or like if people don't go to office or school or just shutting down school and hospitals and office can make the reaching change, like the military to back off and go into democracy, we don't just understand about how this could happen. And that's why we asked two people, most of the people like at the time, we asked to the move friend, some some of the prominent influential thing to the move. And some of the respected people, elders, we asked and they just give fake and like, just two months holding the CDN MUFON we will win like other country also has done but some people suggest to learn about more about non violence literature, because they don't have also clear idea so we try to read books about Gene Sharp and other non violence literature's and then gradually, we Yeah, in the beginning, we don't believe in end violence, we think like maybe armed struggle, it's better because it's, it's clearly it's good, make a change. It's clearly seeing very feasible, very result oriented, you can just expand your territory. So we just think I simply because we are huge, and we want to rebuild, and then yeah, and then at the time, everyone was I focusing on environments. So so we think that okay, we want to see how this could change, what is the success factors? And how where does the mechanisms of change? So yeah, we dive into the non violence literature, we read, which is scarce and also we translate some of the books, and then yeah, gradually, that leads to the deeper philosophy of non violence thinking so non violence, like from time to time, throughout these three years, I we have seen that file and it's not just an action, it has a much more deeper thinking and deeper philosophy behind so so so that we become interested in environments and we see there's there's important niche is essential needing to change to its future. So yeah, gradually we we leave and also we practice non violence concepts.
Host 9:25
I guess what I'm thinking I'm my mind is going back to those pivotal moments that you kind of set the scene for and the imagery of the months after the 2021 coup and the CDM movement and the kind of the hope of what that would bring and I've spoken to so many people that have so many activists that and leaders who put all their hope into that some of whom unlike you and this younger generation, have been in the grassroots advocating for nonviolent resistance for years if not decades of their lives. And so our have been deeply ingrained kind of in this way. You're thinking and this thought, including Buddhist monks as well. And what I find really interesting is at this moment where there's this hope that that CDM and some of the non and not just CDM, but the you have these massive nonviolent protests that are happening everywhere that this could be enough to change the tide. And from the military's response, we see very clearly that they're their response with overwhelming and brutal force, that this mode is not going to work. And that was kind of the moment right around then that many of whom spoke I spoke to describe their transition into resisting in different ways that would sometimes actually be involved in the the armed struggle, and sometimes just more of a passive supporter of it, or ideologically, understanding why this might be necessary. And so what I find really interesting is going back to your pivot point at that moment, with your group, and as you just like the others are seeing this, the way that we're continuing to do things like this, it's not going to work given the response we get from the military. But rather than pivoting in the way that many others did, and seen, we need to start looking at how to speak the only language the regime knows that the only thing to listen to, instead of pivoting that way you pivot the way of going deeper into what nonviolent resistance means, and how to continue the the ideology of non violence with perhaps other other methods and practices than then Then what was happening then because of the danger to them. So I wonder if you can, and I'm setting this all up, because I'm wondering if you can go back to that moment where so many past guests we've had have described the pivot in the other direction. And you can describe why you did not make that you did not see things the same way, you did not make the same turn, to looking at a justification of why at that moment, it was then necessary to resist with force. And instead you went down a different road of seeing of perhaps changing the tactics, but doubling down and investing further in the belief and non violence.
Ye Htet 12:11
Well, yeah, at the time, everyone is hopeful. And also, there are some changes happening, like we can see more solidarity, and also we can see changes in the ideological shift happening in the civic movement in the early days. We just not believe because we're not very understand we don't understand about how that will make change. And also, yeah, I mean, there are a lot of people walking on the streets, that oftentimes, they don't really understand about when we talk like maybe they have different understanding of Alex ECDN. Or like, let's say protesting, everyone taking part everyone taking part, but there is no clear directions of how that will go. So it's more like a home, I will say there are positive thing about home and also there are negative things about home like if we if your expect things very good, and the result is not good people cannot accept more and the end might trigger them. So yes, lots of people's are very hopeful about the change in the early days of, of the massive protests and civil disobedience movement. And at the time, we don't have much confident about that. Because of we don't see the change mechanism there. So at the time, we are skeptical and we try to to dive into research and learning the unknown and honest literature. So at the tiny people are very hopeful and very confident that they will make change in a very few timeframes. Therefore want the military repressed with Pluto forces. They got shock and, and angry and also thinking that there is no other alternative rather than using with force and violence and arms. So for us at the time we are diving we're start diving into the non violence thinking so at the time we find out that like non violent is not just actions, it is not just about walking, it's not just about not going these are like surface level action. That deeper down it is about it's about communicating. Then following nonviolent principle focus on like people can be changed people also even organization which which is made up of lots of people. There's their heart and their thinking and their stories can be changed. So that the key is the key about mobilizing. And then violence movement is strategically how to change these people mind. So, so we are like, there are so many important and also interesting aspect for us at the time, like we just like that we never think before. So we just before like, Yeah, before the call, we just see protests as like, people are just moving on the streets, they are just supporting something. And also other people are supporting, joining the teams. That's it. And if other people the other, the opposition side agreed, they make some progress, if they don't agreed, they are more protests coming. So we just see like this surface level thing. But when you dive into the non violence thinking, we see like, there's a deeper philosophy behind and there are lots of things we need to do. Because at the time, we also realize that there's a different source of power that is influencing to people, like people might think, yes, arms and weapons and bullets can, can can orders and can make obedience and can can force people to do something. But we also think there's also larger forces, that is shaping us unknowingly in the in the behind, like how society is construct how religion is construct how humans are behave in an OB each other. So we see like, like, even like military, they have different forms of pill pillars of supports, like maybe war points, and the soldiers are a part of them that there's a larger forms of support the military is built off. So without trying to tackle these pillars, we cannot have a real change, because otherwise, there will be just a reactions to the, to the military operations and that reactions might not be the solution. And in worst cases, it could also create harm to the people. So that's how we are, like, it's not that simple, that there are lots of thinking and also that at the time, lots of people are not really like after March of 2021, lots of people are not interested in non violence. So at the time, it is really hard to talk like even start to start a conversation about non violence so bad gradually, we are still we're also learning like man falling. It's a very deep construct and deep philosophy. And also, if we can see a lot of the like, even all of the human history, the progress is made, not by the weapon, but by the, by the exchange of ideas and building a better stories and, and then that that's how we are kind of like linking this non violent philosophy with the, with the history and the philosophy and, and other things. And, and, and we and more and more confident about it. And
Host 17:57
I'm definitely one to agree with you on the power and the importance of communication. That's what this platform is really all about just the the belief, and really the passion in being able to sit down even if virtually, and virtually inviting our listener in to this conversation, to be able to have an exchange of ideas, even when they're wildly and sometimes passionately different. But to be able to sit down and to converse, to talk to speak and to learn not necessarily to change minds that might happen not necessarily to find common ground or intersection that might happen as well. But really just the fundamental belief that change starts with speaking and listening and learning and sharing space really just sharing space together, to be able to, to to understand each other and and from there to move on. So I do think that's a very powerful part of what you're talking about doing. And I also want to ask a question, it sounds like you're, as you describe your journey on the nonviolent path. It sounds like it might have started with actions, you know, not so much the mentality but just we're going to show our opinion or our displeasure by gathering in this place with signs or whatever else we do to be able to make our voice known. That's more of an action and what is the mentality of everyone doing it? Well, people probably have different mentalities and why they go there. But then as you get to that point where that pivot has to happen, because the same actions are no longer safe to occur at the military violence, then you start going into the mentality and you describe it as it's a philosophy. It's a way of life. It's an essence of being it's a deep journey that you're going on. And so, describe the nature of this transition of caring going from carrying out nonviolent actions to really imbibing yourself in the research and and the under standing of the non violent mentality and ethos and beliefs behind that, which then started to transform you
Ye Htet 20:11
well yes, non violence, philosophy, you transform me largely mainly in the areas that I how importance to as change of ideas and wards and, and finding the truth together in an open minded way. It's, it's important also like, like learning the non violence, more and more clearly see the change mechanism, even though it's somehow difficult compared to armed resistance, like the change are more subtle and Chantal and it's happening in the D pound level. But once we start realize the change mechanism, we can see how our actions contributed to the results, every words, every communication, every thinking, every practice that we make, its metrics and the change are very visible. It's really hard to say from the outside perspective, but after every engagement, I talk with my like my peers, my like, other dudes from the stripe, common tea, and also there are like people who joined to my workshops and via workshops, I can see their change, I can see their ways of thinking maybe not like, the way that I'm thinking, but there's a change of ideas, the change of actions and everything. So, I'm very sacrifi, I will say, with, with the journey that I've been doing in the past three years, and, and yeah, that's, that's what I feel good. Another thing is like, it's to see more about how I should change myself rather than focusing on something very far away, then valance focusing normally focusing on something very close, like yourself, and like your surroundings. So, because in advance everything, like all the all the means, contribute to the arm, these are like connected and interdependent. So like changing yourself and changing the society, it is something interrelated and happening at the same time. So I try to change somehow to the society and that change to myself. And these are like, I can see clearly, of course, it is not enough, it's a journey, but still, like, there are a lot I could also see myself differently, I could also see my past experience affecting to me, and and how I liberated from these also differently. So these are like a lots of progress happening both in the individual and also creating impacts to the to the outside. So that's how I feel confident about environments.
Host 23:18
So you're saying that following a non violent path is not just about bringing your vision and of change to society at large or in authority and having them change according to your ideas. But it's also about opening yourself up to what kind of interchange and maybe uncomfortable things inside there are to look at. And being a change maker, not just in the sense of the change you inspire in others, but also a change maker and the continued the ever continuing and evolving nature of change that is within. And so that being said, can you describe more specifically, maybe one or two ways that you internally have felt that you have have started to change in some profound ways by becoming more of a follower of this kind of ideology?
Ye Htet 24:14
Yeah, first of all, the its Nan Vaughn is like, as you said, like it's it's not about not just about changing society is changing ourselves. It's happening at the same time. If you see all the non violence icon like Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Johnson Suchi everyone's they are focusing on the internet chain first. That's how that's creating. That's creating impacts the society so so that's I feel like that's kind of one of the principles of non violence to start change yourself. For me. I used to be have a very critics very skeptical, very critical so it try to argue debates and also seen from the negative side. So that's could be like most of the time doing. So I'm also proud of that I still I'm doing that I stay doing critiques in the in the light in most of the time. But learning environments could try to make the balance of this critics in weather and also to try to see about more deeper reflection. So like, like before the coop also I do critics in and, and like, seeing from the negative perspective, but right now, I could, but sometimes it affected me like it affected me angry effect to me confusing effect to me kind of trigger negative emotions and it's really sometimes I just want to give up I don't want to talk, I don't want to just just leave aside, like I don't want to interfere others so but here in like when I standing and violence and and also standing about this middle middle way concept, then I realized like yeah, we can be we can be critical. And also we can be compassionate and open to others. So at the same time, these two things are not just opposing, but that it could be, it could be supporting to each other. So that's this kind of mentality changed me a lot. And another thing would be with the, in the personal relationship with their families and friends. In the past, also I have lots of like, things that I shut down with the families, with my families, and then till now I'm still struggling, but but I could see how, you know, in the past, like I try to see, like, for instance, if I don't like, like, let's see my dad or like my uncle or someone, I just try to see that as like someone who has tried to oppress me like someone who has tried to force me to do something. But now I can see more than the, like more than a person. Like there's a different kinds of forces behind it could be a structure, it could be another intergenerational. So like, I can see more deeper compounds and, and, and figuring out ways to solve about the relationship also about myself to how to be how to be liberate and how to think father. Yeah.
Host 27:37
That's, that's, that's really clear. Thank you for that. And I can definitely see how, as one is starting to look at rooting out the brutality of an aggressor and paying evermore attention to the manifestation of that brutality. You can't help but also begin to look at the brutality and yourself manifested in a very different way but the the unkindness, the insecurities, the impatience and to also be mindful of, of how those behaviors are coming and attended to them. So that's um, that's that's a good picture. So we talked about how, a couple months few months after the the military takeover the there were these massive nonviolent, peaceful protests that were occurring up and down Myanmar. And when the military started predictably started to kill people in broad daylight. And predictably, when the international community did nothing except for issue statements. These types of actions were no longer possible they were just too dangerous to do. And this is the pivot point we keep going back to of what do you do now? Do you submit to the aggressor? Do you take up an R movement? Do you drop out and if you have a privilege, look for other ways to live your life? Or, in your case? Do you continue the nonviolent resistance but have to move in new ways that are still open to you given the situation and context? So I wonder if you can describe those new ways in the past few years? What as far as it's safe to share? Can you tell aside from just learning and discussing yourselves in your group? What actions what nonviolent peaceful resistant actions are you actually taking and supporting within the country?
Ye Htet 29:23
Yeah, so yes, after like military plutocrat, lots of people think man violence it's it's entered that bad for us. We think like there's a lot to do intense of we haven't start much yet. Yes, they are lots of protests. They are peaceful movement. Lots of people join in protest and CJM movement, but we try to see the quality the AdSense and In the imagination, the patients and also how is coalition's work. So in terms of these qualities, we have a lot to improve. The key thing that is missing our say in the non violence movement is a whole picture how these things will make a change, people really hardly understand I just not seen about like ordinary citizens, the people who are really mobilizing that the leader of the strike commenting that you disturb groups, also they don't have much clear visions about or clear understanding about how that will make change. So So like most of the time, I always try to consult with Dan and the things that I say repeatedly is like, we cannot focus only on the, on the tactical aspects of the environments, like, like, there's like, a lot around 200 methods of load read by Gene shop, and you can see these and and you can pick one, and you can do that. I can like make a slogan and do a campaign, you cannot do like that, then the valance need to see a very long plan and see also seen as a as a as like seen as a journey, you need to see the duration as a map, you need to have a roadmap. So like freedom fighter, we are aiming for that part, I tried to have a clear roadmap, and also preparing the necessary resources to go through this, this journey may be a long journey, most probably. So yeah, we try to because at that time, we cannot convince a lot of people like even saying environment is its trigger. And it's it's not well accepted by the by the community at the time, like NUMA community at the time. So we try to try to focus on and on convincing to the small groups, small people like workshops and training, because at the time, like there are not lots of people we can talk like more deeper level. And at the same time, we've prepared the resources, right, like we prepare the weapons for the for this journey. So we try to translate books, making resources, also that resources are also not just for the other people also for ourselves inside, because we need to learn deeper, like, because once we start, like diving into the environment, we see like, Oh, this is a very deep concept. It's a very sophisticated mechanism things and like, we need to learn more like we saw, like, we just know that there is a larger, larger space to learn. And, and, and we are somehow interested in enthusiasts about the journey. But still, we don't know about non violent concept and violent consumers. So we're also learning at the time, like in 2021, we're focused on learning, developing creating resources. So that's how we started.
Host 32:59
Right. So that's how you started on that path, to prepare resources to educate yourself. Because this is also a journey of interchange, to be able to conduct trainings, try to have conversations and communications with those that have the same goal, but maybe different methods and approaches and try to see where you can come together. That's challenging, obviously, because as you say, people don't really want to hear about non violence when their friends and brothers and sisters and family members are getting arrested and killed and raped. It's hard to have that conversation then, understandably, but at this time, this is where you start to develop yourself. And now as we look at a couple years after that point, and the continued resistance at every level that we've seen to the military regime, as far as it's safe to share, can you give any, any more detail about the actual activities and and and tactics that your team has been carrying out or supporting or promoting or, or anything like that as, as far as it's as obviously the play the playing field is very limited, given what the brutality of the military, but where have you found gaps and places where your kinds of methods are able to be enacted?
Ye Htet 34:22
Yes, well, I agree that like the space to do the right actions are limited because of the military brutality. But actually, there is an intent down there lots to be done and most of the people don't pay much attention or likes, overlook things, aspects of non violence change. So we are trying to fill that gap. For example, like we don't have, most of the time I will say like, the most of the time. Lots of people are thinking about focusing on military and the weapons and The soldiers, but for us, we try to see the the deeper mechanism like the religion, the and the education system, and how the society belief is contracts. So it takes more time and also it takes it takes a larger preparations to do that. So we are we are trying to convince others at the same time we are trying to prepare for that journey. So, we don't we say we are quite confident doesn't mean we have like full understanding and full confidence for like certainty about it. So, we still try to figure it out. And also we have lots of debate about how non violence play in in predominant and violence movement is coming. So, yeah, so those are things we have done all our activities like in 2013, we started a campaign called like, about peace walk. So it's it's it's just a walking with wearing white shirts, it's it December, we do that campaign for a few days. And then we, we figured out we are not enough that we are not enough to mobilize yet. We don't have we don't have preparation yet. Like thinking about how to mitigate the risks, how to educate the people how to create the organizer how to create the this organizer. People to to because we need to gently navigate the non violence action, we cannot just like convincing people to go out to the street that is not practical. And also we don't have preparations yet about the future visions and the future roadmaps of how we want to change each of the structural compounds structure injustice, like as I said, in different sectors. So from that time, like starting from 2000, to now we focus more on the changing the inner aspects and preparing for that journey. So in 2020, do we focus on dialogues because like, we understood, we try to, and we start to understand that like if we don't know how to communicate each other, we have no other choice but to use force and balance. So so we started a dialogue platforms, like most of them, when we say dialogue, people are totally against it, like because they think like, it's about dialogue between like sh seats, and like Revolution Foods, but But what matters at the, at the moment, or even now is like we need to have dialogue in between the people who want to make change want to have a real new story. So, so so. So that's how we start this dialogue sessions on Tuesdays and try to, to call for comments. So we try to invite different opinions, different different backgrounds, and even also inviting everyone to speak up what we believe without, like, without interference. So that's how we started four corners. And we are very proud of our four we have done a lot. Because in, in the revolution, like what makes like in the spin revolution is like it's clearly creating like even creating little space for people to engage in dialogue, but more into supporting each other agreeing and, and fighting each other. So like fight like it's forming. There's a forms of polarization effects as a form of censorship, even immediate and mainstream narrative. So we try to fill that gap, try to create debates and discussions. For the, for the like, mainly targeting for the people who are in the revolution. Like for example, like in the CDM case, we tried to create lots of criticism and also we try to create we try to have dialogues for that repeatedly in 2022. Because like lots of people thinking CDN is like very noble thing it's a peaceful non violence everything is good, like you cannot argue it's it's only failed because military or press but but the thing is like if we just try to blame military that means we are giving all of our responsibility of our agency to the military, and we don't know what to do. So like in CDM also, there are lots of things to consider aid and to think like the specially relating with the education sectors, like creating a divisive effect. So that these are the things we try to facilitate and engage them more than that. Like for example, like sanctions and everything like there are also at the time lots of people are allowed to strike committee they want to like I think gspb trying to promote the comprehensive economic sanction, we try to engage that conversation and fortunately they back off and then also Other ideas like because I people are very, like seeing lots of oppressions and brutalities and killings. And it's understandable, they want to do something. But the thing is they need to also listen to different aspects and hearing to different arguments, so that they need to have a more nuanced and more sustainable strategy. So that part we are supporting mostly. Also, we create a training like this is also main activity, like we have done violence training, we call cater training. So we try to teach an advanced aspects and how to how to mobilize and confidence in the strategy way. And also, we give some aspects of principle but not the most, largely because like principle, it's very difficult one, it's like the principal and and violence. So we try to focus on strategic aspect, how the environment can change. So like this is kind of like research based database team. So yeah. Interestingly, like lots of lots of like, dudes who are outside sort of, who have no background in politics are interested in our training mostly. And also, like people in the armed resistance, the use of omnicef, Synthi, also interested about net Myanmar training. So we're very happy to have to introduce that to facilitate and to create dialogue among us. So yeah, so that's our training things. Yeah, most of the other things also, we create, have, we have other forms of regular dialogue sections with other stakeholders to discuss and think about that. So I think in 2022, until 2023, our main focus is on the creating dialogues idea is change, and also preparing for the long journey.
Host 41:49
Right, there's a lot of important points in there. And I, I some of the questions I have coming up, I just kind of want to give a grounding these are I understand, these are hard questions. And maybe I'm going to be a little bit hard on you. But I also want to put that in context that this is kind of the same grilling, and the same hard discussion that we have also given in a different way towards those who have gone the armed resistance side of, and in the spirit of a dynamic and compelling conversation in which we all grow. Often this doesn't happen without taking chances, and the kinds of things that we share, and the kinds of things that we ask even when they're, they can be uncomfortable, or, or, or really kind of delving into some of the deeper, more sensitive aspects. And that's exactly what we've done in the conversations with those who have decided to take up arms or support the armed the arm side of the resistance to really dig into that thinking, both conceptually as well as emotionally what that journey has been like even when it goes to hard places and trying to understand that reality. And so also, I want to do the same, I want to give the same treatment to those who have gone the nonviolent route, and really looking at the common criticisms, the common concerns and and to someone as yourself who is embedded yourself so much in this way of thinking, to know those responses. And so the first question I have kind of towards that end of getting a bit a bit harder and digging a bit deeper into this is that there was something of a concern and a criticism in in the first year after the coup, where when, when the armed resistance started. And when the people looked at a different way to resist, there were a lot of outside observers that were really moralizing and really saying really kind of talking down to and saying, you know, they were in a place of privilege, they were in a place of safety, and really telling those who didn't have any of this, what they should and shouldn't be doing. And those kinds of nonviolent messages, were really uncomfortable for many to hear that this kind of moralizing from a place of privilege and safety of, of how people should be leading the movement that we're actually on the ground. But I believe it was Gandhi who said if if you get hit, if they're hitting you let them hit you in the front and not the back. And that was kind of a way to indicate the fearlessness and the courage of, of those who were holding nonviolence that this is this is how they needed to approach that brutality, that that was the kind of the kind of fearless stance of where they take this ideology. And so, I think a question that many listeners would have of those of you who are advocating and developing strategies for non violence, to whatever degree you can answer this safely without putting anyone at risk, but to what degree is this being enacted by people who are who are away from the conflict and are are conceptualizing this in their own place of safety into what degree is this being followed by people who are really in harm's way to take that famous quote and are facing the brutality in the front and not the back.
Ye Htet 45:09
Yes, I I understand this is a important questions like also, there's important question to, to divide the line I would say because like the outside information is also needed the like, the the outside knowledge, the global knowledge are important because like, everything is associated and we need to learn and inspires and, and we need to engage and help each other. So this is important part. But at the same time also like there is I think it is also important to understand the privilege that we have like, like normally Yes, true non violence, especially the organizers, most of the organizers are coming from the privileged backgrounds. Because to be an n file as you need to have a very sexuals and stable pathways to build yourself first, because non violence needs a lot of internal strengths and you need to build before you go into battle, like you go into resistant movement. So you can see a lot of people are coming from like, everyone like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Downton Suchi, and that's the middle everyone coming from a very elite backgrounds. So like they have privilege, and that's why like, they can build their inner peace, the inner state qualities and then that you can deliver to the outside wall. So that's, that's, that's an important aspect to understand our privilege. And like, the forest in my life, a person born in the war areas, a child who has struggles to be to be educated to have proper education, proper food, proper sexuality, it's really hard for them to think about like non violent it or change like, communication dialogue, it's really hard for them to image it's, it's, it's impractical. So we need to really understand our privilege, the difference, the contextual background, and humans, it is. And, and we need to communicate with paying these, these details. But on the other hand, that doesn't make that doesn't mean like, like, also Myanmar has like too extreme. That's why we are advocating middle way because on one hand, it is not right to be educated from outside or more privileged background to do what to do. But at the same time, we just need to like abandon, like, we have like this xenophobia background that we want to just abandon everyone seen from outside everyone's saying from foreign backgrounds, like we have this, like, these two extremes are supporting each other, I will say so we need to have a very middle approach to see what is the best way. So the problem with the outside lecturing is like, because I think there is a power difference there the privilege and power difference. It's not very visible in the Intel like individual level per se, but that's very clearly visible in the whole structure compound because like, like most of the revolutionary forces, like you can see the media, the NGO, the CSO, like even the people who are going abroad, like lots of the mainstream movement, they are staying right now like in a tire stress. So they have to rely a lot on the international community. Like whether agreed or not, but but so there's a power different say like the international community can speak. Like, like even like like, for example, foreigners and like local person, a foreigner can speak more effectively to the international community. So there's like expectations and power adjustment there. That's why I see a lot of scholars and a lot of a lots of like people in the activist background. They don't agree about non violence movement, but they cannot see they cannot debate with the outsiders. They just they just agreed and shake hands, shake their hand. One day, one day meeting with the international people but when they meet with the local DC like they don't know our context, that's why we need to we cannot see what they see. So there is no proper dialogue happening there's just one side and just ignoring each other. So in the surface, they tried to be polite and incorrect and like agreeing everything but in the in the happening really in the media and all the sectors people really don't care or really believe much in the Netherlands the way that most of the global people thinking. So, this is like this, this divergence is also harming now, so because there is no proper communication between these two, like for me like we need to somehow classify the identity because we need to see the difference, to understand the difference to have so that we can properly communicate. But the thing is, this identity should not be a way to to shut down our voices to have to forming a barrier between In these different communities and, and we cannot have this as change of IDEA properly. So that's, we need to think more about, like how this the power play and role in these things and how can we try to reduce the role of power and more focus on how we can exchange troops. That matters the most to us.
Host 50:23
Another thing I want to follow up on is when you've been several times now you've referenced the names of different nonviolent activists, Martin Luther King, Jr, Mandela, Gandhi, and you've also included Aung San su chi, and that and so I want to get your read on how you see her legacy. Because I think, if we were talking and I don't know, 2005, and Aung San su chi was referenced as one of the great human rights and nonviolent icons, I think that you wouldn't get much argument and that but if you're talking, if you're holding on switching that light after say, 2018, when we're looking at especially her relation to the Myanmar military to the Rohingya genocide, I know there's a lot of nuance here, there's a lot of people who have everyone has their own Aung San Su, Aung San su chi theory as to why she did what she did. And then others say, No, that's your being an apologist and, and come down with more kind of moral fundamentalism. And that's, I don't want to go into those debates, because we can go way into the weeds if we start going in that direction. But it's more that just in a general sense, I'm just curious if because you've referenced her several times do you? Do you hold her in that same light as this kind of paradigm of, of a figure who is, is in that same light as being a non violent actor in the mode that you find yourself training in?
Ye Htet 51:54
Again, that's also Yeah, that's also depends. Like, for me, I try to see people and their thoughts and the actions different, even, like, it's not this is how the middle weights work. It's not just try to label a person as like Lego Why try to see the new and like, try to see the theory behind like, which aspect is good, which aspect that we can inspire which aspect we need to careful which aspect we can learn the lesson. So about sensitivity, it's a, it's still relevant to the current revolution, I would say because like, a lot of the revolution actors coming from these like NLD backgrounds. So these are like, like a lot of them get supported from the people like they got popular support till now because of onsens witchy influential power, that's why they need to put on some sushi in the lots of their official discretion light and State Councilor still. So, so, this is quite still often Suchi has been a public icon maybe not in the international icon yet but still a public icon in the in the Myanmar community and a lots of people are supporting the current mainstream movement leaders to to association with her. So still, they are like debate about these things, but okay. And then about uncensored cheating is like, I think she is she's an environment atrophies i She in general, the principle the understanding, the fear, and fear concept, these are all important aspects of non violence and, and she has been standing there for decades, without changing her mind. And I think she will still continue, but the problem comes when she gets in power. So that is also kind of kind of an predicted journey for harsh in my analyze, in my opinion, she didn't have enough preparation to recruits also, she tried to change from that time when he got in power from and then Vaughn atrophies to to to a leader of a country like a more like a government official so so that power difference shift a lot so this that's why in non violence is power plays a very important role like when you get especially when you get in power people change. So not just hard, hustle, change the people surrounding change also like there is no arguments there is no debate there's no check and balance of power. So it's for me to another form of concentrations and check power on her and that make are blinded it's not just for her I mean actual power always leads to blindness and, and making evil pain, maybe with good intention, but leading to evil thing. So I think so there's, there's a turning point there when someone can empower that that non violence journey could be deviated, maybe because of harm maybe because of surrounding or like in or ports. So that's what we feel like because like, authenticity also don't like about like student protests. She don't like about, about the ethnic groups revolution, so that somehow the narrative has like changing like, not just in the Rohingya case, a lot of the case, she changed maybe because maybe she want quick, she wants a quick solution, like, because like, because of her age, you want to bring, like more like, because of like, like using force and using power, seeing quick, most of the time, like, you know, like dialogue, and then bow nine, you need to make people understand, like comprehensively saying that it takes normally a longer journey than volume and power seems quick, but most of the time, this has the side effect that it could draw back easily, like, like what's happening now. So that's a lesson that we could learn from this revolution, like new actors, also, like the power play is very important. Like people may have good intention, I will say like, everyone's starting with a good intention, I also switch to even the military leader, they start with like good intention to build this country, even right now, they may have this contention, but when I want when people get power, the change is happening. That's why that's the lesson. I mean, Aung San su chi for me is kind of like some some lesson and some inspirations. At the same time, it's, it's somehow a pass. I mean, it needs to be a pass in a few decades. So the most important thing is like what lesson we can learn from heart. So that's how I approach.
Host 56:33
So looking back on the years of resistance before this current moment, one of the in the different interviews we've done on this platform, as well as reading through some of the different different books that have covered that I'm thinking of like Delphine Schrank, and Elliot Presley Freeman, in particular, in some of the work they've done in cataloging these grassroots efforts, one of the things I've learned from talking to them and from reading their books is that for many activists, non violence was in speaking to those nonviolent those activists themselves as well and from their own voice. non violence was not so much something that was taken up in previous years for ideological reasons. It was more taken for practical reasons, it was more like the sense of there is for the current climate for the current conditions, the strength of the military, the divisions among the different ethnic groups, the political awakening of the different activists and the the will to endure the conflict and everything else that that, that a violent rebellion or revolution against the military in previous years, it simply wouldn't work, it just wasn't a good plan, if you want to overthrow this regime, this is not the way to do it, and so many that I've spoken to and some of the scholarship that I've read on it has described that their nonviolent activism or sometimes their activism, you can say in some sometimes like supernatural fields, you know, like Christine rituals or, or, or looking at like past lives, or other realms or things like that, that these were really creative ways and innovative ways to show resistance, and continue the movement without being annihilated by this, this really brutal, awful regime that wouldn't think twice about imprisoning or killing someone. And it was a way to keep that resistance alive. And as it's been explained to me, you know, the conditions have changed since 2021, the conditions have changed. And this is now the new strategy that we need to adopt in order to finally make this turn and overthrow this regime. And some activists, some activists have described a very painful transition to realizing that they had to let go of their nonviolent ways, because they came to realize this is the only way we can really succeed. In the end, while others wasn't so much the case. They said, Look, we were doing nonviolent activism for years for decades, because this was the smartest thing to do in that moment. But the conditions changed. And now this is what we need. This is the path we need to follow in order to get where we want to go, the destination has never changed. And it's never been about an ideological method, or an ideology for how we get there. It's just the most practical way. And before non violence was more practical. Now, armed struggle is more practical. And so I wonder if you can speak to your understanding of and I know this is not I don't want to pretend this as monolithic or generalize it too much that there's a lot of shades of this, but I wonder if you could speak to your understanding of how you would characterize some of the non violent actors and grassroots efforts in previous years and decades, and how you might contrast that or how that might be integrated into the kind of nonviolent training and methodology that you have been undertaking these last few years. So
Ye Htet 1:00:00
like, in the like past three years, like lots of people, as you mentioned, change, like the Netherlands activist and into answer ago because of practicality maybe. I think that is understandable like seeing the brutal oppressions. But more than that, it's also understandable because the suicidal thinking also change, like, maybe that's a primaries and our say because like one of the good good advantage, one of the advantage that I have is like I'm outside of this political activism field. So most of the time the activism walk in groups in a solidarity way. So they need to respect each other, they need to bring other people aspects. So when the whole, the collective thinking change, they got to change. So this is how, that's what I feel like when I talk to a lot of activists, they know that there's a problem and I'm resistant, they know that there, there needs to be more strategic non violence, but they need to follow with the trends they need to follow with what other people are doing. So that's why I see a lot of nonviolent action previously, in the past we have focused on like tactical and campaigning on setting day and setting date on setting actions, but they cannot focus more on like deeper, or longer strategy or coalition forming. So that's one thing that I see about, like people who was still saying, like, we are still standing on and violence, but we are also supporting to armor system, like a lot of the mainstream movement right now people see like, we have, like, I read an article called like total resistance, we have to combine armed resistant and civil resistant, a lot of scholars, activists support that approach. So that but for me, when I see that approaches like like, it's not purely non violent, it's non violence in action, maybe like when you protest, when you make slogans when you think and when you put weapons, it could be I'm resistant, but the thing is, that if there's no clear mechanisms of change, and when you use when you're, you say you're like non violence, but you're like, at the same time, like affiliating with armed resistance that's in literature or in philosophy, really, it's really hard to say non violent, it's a non violence action, but in supporting to armed resistance, it's a branch of the armed resistance, I would say like a like a like communication team of armed resistance. So, like, yes about the practicality question like I saw a lot of people saying because of this like the end justify the main thinking like, like, because of this, we got to change the approach because the armed resistance is more critical, but the thing is, I I want to really engage mouth or questions about what this practicality means like practicality means like, you can harm more people you can kill like more people or you can expand the territory or like is that what what the results mean? What practical results mean? Because from our assistant you can you can make more ants you can kill more people, you can gain some territory, you can build power based on this ability to violence, but is that the end? Or is that the future that we want to create? Because if like a lot of people are focusing on these things only what like like we can create like a like some kinds of territorial like like like in the ethnic armed groups like like other armed groups are working really hard. But like like still they are struggling with forming some new teachers ships in their STEM stuff so like like I don't know what like I think we need to like question about this practicality means yes Nan valance it's understandable the difficult to sink the mechanism of change so people might think it's it's it's it's it's not practical but the pain is like like we try to see the actor these day like like armor asst like when you try to see armor system like this is about the battle between sec and other revolutionary actors. But we need to really careful understand about this, sec, or even every political organization is built up upon the society involvement with because society is forming at the base, like the people, the community or the base, and that's supporting these, these things. And that's why these these, these are the enablers of this dictatorships and this military lists and happening in Myanmar, because these aren't groups like or the SEC is not coming from the outside, it's coming from the insights and and it's coming from the support of the ordinary people and still continuing support in direct or indirect way. So without changing these root cause, we can somehow take some of the leaf some of the some of that we can just try some of the branches but still, the roots will stay growing and then they're over. or conflicts and dictatorship thinking was still continuing in Yemen so so like, I mean Yeah. It is understandable on one hand about people saying practicality like it is very visible that the war like these every news are filled with the Wars news like how many people get killed how many billboards shoot how for territory again so people focus on like these things that's understandable this is something like when we call about ideas when you talk about ideology against the philosophy go and then this nand file and concept people think like this, like, like, like the ideologies and practice or let the practical results are two different things. So that's something I like to argue that's not like ideological and practical, they need to be inter related, like in the like the, like impetus literature that the eight noble parts is start with the right views. Because you cannot start with the action because you don't know whether it's right or wrong. You don't even know what was that you can bring? You don't even know what kinds of work you're doing. Are you just doing because most of the narrative that I see in the mainstream movement, people thinking right, because they don't try some resistant the military make them to choose the US they want to choose then found and so so like this is also giving agency to the military, because military let we because this is not our choice. You know, this is what interesting about arm resistant and this debate about non violence and practicality. Like people don't want to choose arm resistance. That's that things we can agree upon that. But the thing is like, what do we understand about non violence movement that might be different. Most of the time people focus on actions, like we have done, most of the people thing like we that everything like we've done we like because because they see the people on the street, that people are not going to office in the in the CDN movement. So they know that this is the limit, they know that they they think that's the maximum limits have been reached, and military didn't back off. So like, they need to have a far more a different way, like the armed resistance. So I just want to reflect back to the non violence and there's a deeper ways of doing to non violence. And if we can think about that, if we can see that the waist is doing we can see its practicality. Also.
Host 1:07:21
Yeah, that that what you said actually brings up a direct conversation I had with a longtime nonviolent activist, I think maybe four or five months after the coup. And it was one of the things that stands out in the whole history of this platform is at one point him just kind of kind of up in arms saying like, look, we've we've tried this, we've tried this, we've tried this, we've tried this, if there's something we haven't tried, please, international community, tell us what that is tell us. You know, do you think that we want to do this? Do you think that we enjoy doing this? Like? Of course not. But you know, if there's something we don't know about? And we haven't tried, tell us what that is, and he filled life with him, he couldn't figure out what was left. And that's why he made that transition. I also want to ask a question, and you kind of you already kind of touched upon this in your last answer. And so I want to segue into referencing what you said, and then opening it up to a wider question. And what I was going to ask was about if you saw the what you were doing in terms of the nonviolent actions as kind of one arm of many in the resistance of the military, that you're doing your part and the armed resistance is doing their part. And then they're CDM. And then there's n ug, and then there's an UCC. And then there's the Ayios. And, you know, kind of, on and on, and that all of these are kind of are, are in their own way, operating in their own direction. And together, it's going each in their own way, each kind of each person, each movement in their own way, is going to affect an overall change that and an overall resistance that maybe together will be enough to topple the military. And I wanted to know if if you saw this as kind of one of the methods coexisting with these other methods, or if you saw what you were doing in contrast, or even contradiction or even conflict to these other ways of resistance. And in your answer, you seem to indicate that that you don't see these as going in line together, you mentioned that historically, and academics have referenced that, that, that these things can't really be aligned, they really need to be more pure in the orientation and methodology being done. So can you can you open up that answer and give you a response to the question of can this be one method of many that will all kind of work in its own way to achieve the results that we see? Or do you really see what you're doing and contrast and even in conflict to to those other methods that are not nonviolent?
Ye Htet 1:09:56
Well, it's it's really hard to generalize this question but I will try So I will say for us, what we understand about revolution, or radical change is different with reactions. Or, or explosion and resistant only so resistant, like, it's about coming from the oppression. So we want, we want to resist that, we don't want that. So, and we have pain and, and hatred and anger. And so that's why that's, that's, that's explored and we try to react on that part. So most of the movements that we are trying to criticize and trying to argue is that we need to shift from this reactive thinking to more proactive and more revolutionary thinking in a way, like, we need to see the deep town level. So yes, like there are some, most of the time we are not really supporting much about the SE, action, like like the tactical planning, the tactical method type of action, we don't engage much in these things, even though we think that's important, but without linking with a strategy in a larger, larger can larger aim, these are just like Sunsoo said, it could only be a noise and distraction only. So. So on that area, we are we are different with with maybe lots of people thinking but there are many other things that we are supporting like, like for instance ally, like some of the some of the strike committee, they they try to make your campaign about there is no union yet. So these kinds of campaigns are focusing on the deep down deep down the radical structure of from the AMA. So we try to support these canceled we are we'd like we think these are in line with our our ambition, some of the people try to change Buddhism. So I try to create conversations about what are the what are the construct of the current Buddha's in existence, and how we can image in a better future. So that kinds of things, we think we are in line and we are supporting them, and we are more eager to walk together, like insight Myanmar is doing also. Yeah, also, like, also, they are also we what we see about the right action is not just about protests, or like not just about not just about CDM. But there are many ways that even incite people on the ground doing without using the name revolutions. Like there are people who are trying to create some kinds of grassroots movement about education on the, on the disadvantaged people. They are people who are still doing about, about the woman rights in the country and labor rights in the country. So these are also I think we also ally, but for the mainstream movements, we are not thinking as as, like opposition, of course in and found and says no anti movement, like like we are we don't also like to mention that everyone is trying to abolish military like, but here also, what do we want to like we want to, we don't want to just write military, we want to create a news story that is better for military and also for the, for the rest of the community. So so that part like some some of the narrative, we agreed on some of the agreed, that's a conflict thing with our ideas, like, like, like, like, for example, like the narrative focusing on like, like, about the pedals, and how many people get dying and seeing this as a result of achievement for that that's not a real achievement. So these kinds of things, we have different thinking, but different doesn't mean like we are we are open to everyone. So like we want to collaborate in one to encourage dialogue or conversation with anyone, including military. So like all the all the revolutionary forces, we are open to work together. But still there are different lines of thinking we have
Host 1:14:15
another hard question, I would say to preface it, that I'm sure you get asked a lot. It's one of the most common criticisms that can be launched about looking at a non violence in place like Myanmar, is that in looking at the historical examples, one we'll look at, like, you know, in in the civil rights movement in America and Martin Luther King, Jr. You know, he was really using the advantages of publicity and showing in an instigating and then showing the real brutality and racism the way it was manifested towards blacks. And that was able to be picked up by a free press and shown to white people everywhere and make them disgusted about what was happening in their own country or you look at Gandhi in India and he's a similarly, he was also able, he was able to use the kind of colonial British thinking against them in, in in showing how they were violating the principles of their own society and to set up situations where the discrimination, the brutality, the racism, that Indians were facing that that became known by England and progressive communities and activists and in England, and then the West, were able to understand the movement that Gandhi was pushing. And, and the contrast with this is obviously like, well, this would probably not work in Nazi Germany, this would probably not work in Imperial Japan, it would not work in North Korea today. And the the Burmese military state is a similar example to these others, you know, there were nonviolent resistance resistors to Hitler's Germany, and it obviously didn't work. There were also armed resistance that didn't internal rebellions and revolts against what Hitler was doing, that obviously didn't work as well. But, you know, I remember as well, one of the most listened to interviews we've ever had was with Bhikkhu Bodhi, who's an American Buddhist monk, one of the most respected Buddhist scholars living today. And at one point in the interview, he said, what I would like to see, what I would suggest is that hundreds of monks come and sit before a government building, and they just sit in meditation, they just, they just sit in chanting metta, or, or, or in meditation, just a silent protest, that is showing dissent to the military. And I said, Well, that's a really nice idea. But, you know, in reality, if that happened, then you would just see them all brutally killed and arrested either in broad daylight or once night fail, we saw that movie before it Saffron Revolution. And so, this very nice idea, you have about the possibility of a nonviolent resistance involving these monks, this this is a regime without any humanity, this is this is a this is not, this is not, you know, 19th, early 20th century, England or mid 20th century, America, this is, this is a different kind of society. And these actions which are speaking to their humanity, as in Nazi Germany, or or other totalitarian states, there is not necessarily this humanity to speak to this society is ordered in a different way. And so one of the common criticisms of the possibility of of really embracing a complete nonviolent resistance post coup and Myanmar, is that there you're not going to, there's no humanity that you're going to awaken, you're you're just going to you're you're just going to provoke murderers and arrests and rapes and everything else, and they're just, they're just going to keep going over bodies until body stops, until there's no more bodies to put in front of them. The what worked in, in the civil rights movement or in colonial India is not going to work here. So I'm sure you've heard that argument many times before. And I wonder how you think about that and respond to it.
Ye Htet 1:18:23
Yes, I hear that quite a lot of time and again, I it is understandable to think that way and it is like yes. But in my in my defense, I will say I would like to argue that they are always first of all, like every person in power, maybe individually or institutionally they want to continue the power. So, they will use whatever ways they think fit also they can use to defend their power. So that's how the power dynamics work. And then yes, it is true that like, it will be difficult to do that civil resistant movement and feminist movement in nasty Germany, but also it is also difficult in like all the people as you mentioned, like British colonial or like, other country, if we see on the like, if we see on the deeper history, like there are lots of brutality also happening in British colonial also they they make lots of genocides brutal oppressions whatever they can. So, in the, in the United States also they make lots of repressions and like
Yeah, so like, it is like, it is always this is like a general response of the dictator or people in power to to protect their their seats. And it is like try to compare like British colonial, it's like very innocent, very, very, like, good, like, well treated, it's also misrepresenting of the history. So they may also very evil things. But the thing is, but there's a there's a way of progress, there's a very long timeline to change that things in a gradual way like For Gandhi, he needs to take like four decades, the same for civil resistant movement, I enter in the civil rights movement in the United States, it takes what the crates like, like also that that movement needs to be built upon the other types of movements. So like, like, like, like, it is, it is, I will say it is not right to be thinking like the dictatorship the way they are doing that the way they are oppression is like, like, deterministic that people have no room to do non violence. Instead, we need to have a plan, maybe it takes a long way to see what are the ingredients needed, what are the what are the necessary preparation for that, then we can create from that we can create like a gradual approach. So for us, we think like we need to vary, we need a very critical and radical vision. But when we go into there, we need to be very moderate, we need to we need to take a step by step approach. So like a gradual ways. So every move and like civil rights movements and power to the LGBT movement, the United States, these are interconnected, like for some people in like 19th century or like, after the World War Two, they might not think like the they're they're like a person LGBT in the United States also have facing a severe oppression, they don't have a ways to, to, to to stop it. But gradually in the next, let's say 60 years, they can change significantly. So that's a power of human communications, and assisting actions. For Myanmar. Yes, it is understandable that people say like, it is not just about the coop, it is like some Semitic years long institution. But for me, it is long, and that this narrative of like, create using violence and military as a way to create this country as a way to unite people as a way to build the like, religion, Buddhism, like everything, start with violence in this country. And this tradition coming not just like somebody years ago, it's coming from them again, ah, from the, from the first Myanmar King Dan's story. So this story is interconnected, and still using the military and still accepting by the majority of the people. So these are the, these are the root cause that creating disbelief that only forces is the solution, and only seeing people as a black or white like, like, every people in the military must be black, therefore, we are all white. So these kinds of black and white thinking creating extreme power, extreme conflicts, and also these extreme forces are in the surface, it seems they're fighting each other. But in the deep down, they're supporting each other, so that we cannot create a middle way to have a certain action. So. So like, yeah, like, we cannot think like, this is the point that I've, I feel kind of like, I feel difference with lots of people thinking is like, the focus on military, for me, it's, yeah, military is a part of the problem. But it is not the root cause yet there's a deeper root cause there and, and to change that we need to have a yes, we need to have a clear vision and assessing, assessing strategy and, and a gradual action to build what are the necessary action. So that we, I sincerely hope that kinds of leadership, that kinds of movement work in March, and then that will create a progressive, like progressive mean, like we can reach a perfect solution, perfect future, but we have a way to, to do a better, a better, a better future. So that should be the nonviolent ways work. And it could walk in any reaching, it seems difficult, because of the limitation here these days. But if we see for like, the longer timeframe, like there are a lot we can do.
Host 1:24:26
That's that's a very powerful answer. Thank you for that. And I want to pick up on a couple of themes that you talked about the longing for it, you you speak a lot about long frame and short frame and this and really emphasizing this been a long journey where rather than kind of a quick fix of force, and so I want to look at that relationship. And I also want to look at some of the historical precedents that we keep talking about and flesh those out in some more detail. So, let me let me give some context. First, I just want to give some some some forum Warning that there's a bit of context I want to cover. So I'll talk for just a moment about some of these historical examples. I want to give and describe those in details and then turn the question over to you to, to get your analysis and your take on this and looking at these relationships. So historically, non violent movements such as once we've been talking about the Civil Rights Movement, the US the anti apartment apartheid movement in South Africa, we can also throw in the Irish non cooperation movement. Historically, these have been shown to succeed through some combination of violent and nonviolent means. To give some examples, the US saw various armed black resistance groups fighting back against like the kk k with firearms and leaders such as James Forman, who led protesters to take on police forces with fists and rocks, during the famous marches to Selma and Montgomery. And in one case, there were even 2000 people that were led to march to the Montgomery courthouse. And it was so impactful that it's been said by some historians that Montgomery city officials met with four men and Martin Luther King, Jr. To discuss coordination and future protests in response to the fear that violence of protesters had been instilled with them. South Africa, if we take this one, it's not only these national international boycotts and sanctions, but there was also an armed insurrection. And Mandela himself he founded a wing of the ANC. Some people would say it was a paramilitary wing, some people even said terrorist at the time, it carried out bombings, torture, extrajudicial killings regularly, if we go to the Irish non cooperation movement, this coincided with the Irish Civil War, it was an armed conflict that eventually push the British out of most of Ireland. And even Indeed, even if we look at nonviolent movements, which succeeded independent of organized violence, and for this, we could take Gandhi's non cooperation movement. It succeeded not through appeals to reason and rational argumentation, some people would say, but through artificially imposing economic burdens on the authorities that rendered a given enterprise non viable, and often attracted Speights of violence in addition to that. So in the years since their successes, there has been a narrative that's been formed, some would argue, again, that emphasizes the power of nonviolent resistance, both to dissuade the populace from turning to violence in the future. And also to kind of whitewash the authorities give them an excuse, or a way out, the authorities of the day to not be seen as caving in to the threat of force or bankruptcy. But as rational actors that their better angels came out, they were swayed by non violent, reasoned arguments. At the same time, there's also historical examples of unilaterally unilaterally nonviolent resistance movements that have not succeeded, we can take the Prague Spring of 1968, or the march 1 movement in Korea and 1919, or the Northern Ireland civil rights movement of 1967 to 1972. Most notably, we can look at the nonviolent movement of the Moriori people of New Zealand in the face of the Taranaki invasion. And so this is this is I don't mean to litigate, and go back into every historical example and get into the weeds with that. And I'm sure that and I also want to make clear that that this argument that I'm bringing this is this isn't this is an argument that's out there among some scholars and historians, I'm sure people listening to this, that have access to other information, have their own narratives might dispute part of this, and that would be a whole separate side conversation. But with these historical examples, it's to just give a reference point that this stuff is very messy, and sometimes the situation that's happening in real time and on the ground then gets kind of cleaned up and sanitized. And the way we look back at it later, and just remembering kind of the main the parts of the narrative that we might like to remember and so, this then shines a light on the relation between the the short term we could say advantages or or strategies of force and the long term strategies of non violence communication, being able to understand each other and so, with that, the question comes is there can there be a relationship to a short term aspect to the use of force in opening up and then having a non violent movement side by side that which then can gain more relevance can be seen as a more rational actor can be listened You can can kind of force the authorities to, to to have to listen to it, because it's a obviously, your as an authority, if you're, if you don't have any reason to want to talk to minorities that are protesting oppression, if you're forced to the table, you're going to want to talk to those more reasonable actors that are trying to calm their own communities down and to, to find a reasonable solution than those that have weapons in their hand, that would be an obvious solution. And so sometimes it can kind of drive and force that, that engagement that otherwise wouldn't be there. So just in looking at some of those historical examples, looking at what's happening in Myanmar, if you could comment on that and expand on how you see this relation between the short term decisions to engage in for side by side or potentially more long term vision of a peaceful and non violent society that lives in harmony with different communities can come together and still live in harmony and that diversity?
Ye Htet 1:31:09
Yes, well, this question, I totally agree that all the movement comprises the components of violence and, and then violence mixing it is really, it's impossible to just have like purely non violent or purely armed resistance, they're always missing and we try to generalize upon which has met greater influence on the whole movement. So that's how normally history to to mine and violence or violence, but still, there are always components of the other dimension. And, and again, like, I always, I try to say repeatedly that it is understandable to use that balance and not try to be against or anti of life, like aren't resistant, because that's not non violence in their environment is solving the root cause of violence only and, and, and it is, it is reasonable for people to choose violence when they feel there is no other ways to do and like Gandhi said, like, between violence and qualities, he would choose balance. So like, like, so that's a, that's always there in the light in the non violence, thinking that, to appreciate the, like non violence is not just like, supporting to be like doing that thing or like not doing violence, but it's about try to find ways to proactively assault the root cause. So, so in that sense that like the armed resistance and non violence are not necessarily conflicting. So against each other, like, it could, there are many ways that could be incorporates each other. But the thing is, when we communicate, when we try to mobilize non violence movement, it's about the people it's using, most of the time, the power of the general civilian, so one the, in, like, in terms of visions, these movement can be like supporting each other. But in terms of planning and organizing, it's always better to be separate, like, whatever we like, okay. The leader should be separate, even like, like, like, like Nelson Mandela, he tried to separate with the different entities, but still they on the same branch like NC, but gradually he stopped at that armed resistance. So like, yeah, it's better to be separates, if it is confused. It's like, the essence of nonviolent communication, the essence of the civilian people are somehow blar. And then it's easier for the, for the other side to oppress, like, like, in association with armed resistance. So like, also people become more fear, like, like, what happened in CDM. Right now, like, like, actually, CDN is an invalid movement, they should not be fear. The most, the maximum operation that the military can do is like they're firing up and getting such fines. But now people are like CDN movement, like confused, like, mixing with the arm resistant, everyone fear so like military, they have a lot of advantage on that, like, they, they can, they can incite fear with a with a with a, like a minimum effort. So like so like, that's what happened if you if if this movement are confusing in in a in a in an operational level. So that's what I understand these things. I know that's what also happened in in EMS so so that's, that's something we need to think about. And also Yes, true that like there are lots of movement that is in the seat. Yes, true. Like we can see like, at ATA, we can see there is some progress like a suffering revolution. There is some progress but it's not reaching to the end. Also other movement, they got our press and like right like whatever When in the spring revolution in the early days, like propeller or press and people might interest no results, but the thing is yeah, for us it is it is. It isn't the movement is not just like the like the people people call me on the street the movement is also happening from the stage people start thinking people start organizing people start talking to do basting and, and wonder people these are the more important and deeper, deeper elements of non violence resistant and these are the things that still contributing so far isn't like lots of people think the efforts that have done in the in the like the early days of the antique movements are wasted. But still there are a lot that is contributing to current movement like people consciousness has been awakened people began more solidify and like June united and and also the lots of key factors are if you if you interviewed them, lots of people are defected because of the these specific movement not for the armor system, like like these, they may be they're like more people, like, decide that and, and drop their weapons because of their fears. But in the early days, like in the past two years, three years, most of the defectors were joining in the revolution actively they are coming they are they have been awakened from the from the people power movement. So my point is yes, if we see like single event, it is so there are lots of cases that doesn't contribute to the end result. But still there are they are always in and violence. The advantage is like there's always this people mindset shift, that is that matters. And that long lasting effects, there is a long lasting effect in that. And also there is no harms, that's also important as well, like in our resistant. Yes. Like, that's another question about using foods. That's that's a question also, we're we're internally debating most of the time like whether we should agree like using force or not the genius like the environment from time to time in many of the movements, people are using force to communicate. So, even like in in the Buddhist literature, like the boldre use, sometimes he used power to first show his ability and then convince like, communicate later. So like these are like, way that we can see in the Buddhist literature also. So but the thing I think the most important part is like to be mindful use of force like, it is like it is like, like, we need to abandon all the force like that also not practical. And also, it's really hard to define ways of where to draw the force. But we, I think what's most important is like, we need to have a clear and mindful intentions of, of how and how, and why we are using forces. Because when we get the power, like the example in like, the previous XML is nonsense, which you when you get the forces, when you have the ability to force it, when you have the power you have, it's a very significant chance to deviate your lines of thinking your original approach your intentions. So that's one thing. Another thing when you do violence, especially harming and physical violence and damage to other killings, you also kind of sacrifice a part of yourself like so like, this is like it's not just offensive. Yes, I understand as a defensive reason, but more like it's, it's not easy to kill a person, it's not easy to kill another human beings and that that's affecting to the, to the, to the soul. So like, you need to very clear about that. So like, I worry about that part, that transition that transformations are using so force and balance could reach you could reach could deviate from the original origin ambitions, origin officience And that that happened quite frequently so so that things need to be careful. We need we don't need to be addicted with force, we need to be like the truth should come before the force the vision should come before the force the the intention that good intention should come before the forces. So that's, that's an important point. I think.
Host 1:39:39
That's a really honest answer. I really appreciate that. And it's um, I think it it should engender a lot of trust in the listeners what you're saying because I think a different response could have been a more kind of sugarcoated superficial response of the primacy of now On Violence and every situation that was divorced from the actual reality that sometimes we face of of how messy and convoluted and tricky these things could be. And I think that that answer shows kind of the depth of how you're wrestling with this, not just in Myanmar, but historically as well. So I really appreciate that, I want to touch upon one thing you talked about with CDM, where you you expressed up a danger of association between CDM at its core, which was not going to be a government sort of a government servant in some capacity and not go into your office to not recognize legitimacy of the military regime. And the danger if that in any way gets aligned with any kind of violent apparatus or movement or even support that it kind of soils or damages or in dangers, really that movement, I would push back somewhat. And I think this is also where we come to the distinction of what you find in the Burmese military regime in Myanmar today. And, and that example, and how that aligns with like Nazi Germany and North Korea versus the examples of some of these other places that these are fundamentally different societies. And where I would push back is in saying that, as we will know, in Myanmar, you know, you you don't have to be an arm combatant, to face persecution, and even death at the hands of the military, you don't even have to be someone who isn't committing violence, but just advocating that or supporting it in certain ways. There are people who have liked to Facebook posts and have gone to prison for liking a Facebook post, a Facebook post, that is simply supporting the N ug, you can use N ug pay and you can go to prison, you can have a truck full of medicine that you're bringing to an IDP camp, and that can put you in prison, you could do none of this. And you could just simply be in your own in your own home, you could lose your home and end up in an IDP camp, you could be in your school, you could be a monk in a monastery, on and on and on. We know all these stories, all these cases all too well. It's disgusting. And it's it's tragic, and it's awful. But the point is that none of that there's no safety, none of this keeps you safe. So if you're talking about a rational, logical actor who you can predict how they're going to behave, and that they're acting in their own interests, then yes, maybe you can say that, that, that the people that are supporting a certain kind of armed resistance are going to get this kind of punishment, but those that are resisting in other ways, or really separating themselves from the, from those that are advocating for us that they will be treated differently by by some authorities, maybe by the British colonial authority in India, maybe by certain parts of the American government, during the Civil Rights Movement. Maybe you can make that case. Of course, we can get more into the weeds and nuances. Of course, that's not totally true. There are problems there as well. But the point being that, again, going to Nazi Germany, or North Korea, or the military regime and Myanmar, that they don't make, they don't distinguish this way, they don't make these kinds of these types of distinctions. They, as we well know, they, they are a brutal force, which is going to raid and punish and Elgin murder as they like. And so one of the flaws I kind of see in this argument or this concern is that this is assuming some kind of humane and logical and rational actor, which I don't see the military as being. I'm sure this is also not the first time you've heard this criticism. So how do you usually respond when this concern comes up?
Ye Htet 1:43:46
Okay. First of all, I in this in this podcast, I don't, I don't, I think I don't talk much about the evilness of military that brutality of military. I talk more about critics ins and arguments and like, conflicting thoughts about the mainstream movement, because for me, I think it is important to tuck in a close in from the closed cycle, because that's the that's the agents agent that's the these are the change agents. And military I think is a little bit far from my reach. But yes, it's if like everyone does these day it is it's if we talk about military evilness and brutality, it's limitless that's I have no reason to i That's I had heard enough of like, and it's true, it's evidently true. That the thing is how I just want to think like one step farther like how how to solve that how to how to find ways so like, like you mentioned, like military as a like Uh, kind of in association like in as as you mentioned you like Nazi Germany and not Korea, you try to like see military as the same compartment for me it's there's always different like different contexts and that the genius like what we do see is like they're always military is not just one people they're like lots of people working together so we need to add there's if there's a lots of people walking together there's there needs to be always conflicts on this of IDEA company sort of complex of power. So, but military seems to be very rigid standing for like several decades we need to see why and why what are the things that make military still standing these days. And, and the thing is like, like, like, as you mentioned, like now's the time, you're not Korea, they they can oppress, they can use force, they can violence in a way that people can agreed, maybe not most people, but the inner circle and the people supporting down a creek down. So that's the way that's called Anabela. So there's the C, enabling factors that military can do. So that's we need to also I am thinking why that happens. So why that happen is because the military try to, rather than saying about the internal injustice, actually military during a lots of unfair and like validation to its own people, I mean, the soldiers and the people surrounding them, like only a branch of people getting like an equal power. But the thing is, they try to legitimate these buying, trying to point it out the external threats, like to try to put fear into people. So so that's how normal pediatricians work. And so like, like for the revolution movement, if we want to really breaking down the military or changing DOM into a new way, we need to see this revolution movement as not just as a threat, not a threat to destroy each and every one of them, but try to unite and forming a better future for them, then the military have a very limited power to use operations. Because when you owe price, there's always resisting force there. This is like a new 10 laws of like, action and reaction, like lots of forces. So but the thing is, like when there is when there is oppression, there's always resistance from the people. But the thing is, how can we use this resistant power effectively, it's the basic criteria, it's a success, matter of, of, of whether and then violence movement, or like armor assistant movement system or not. So like these, this, this, like, like, in the past three year, we have seen in the military or press a lot like that, then people also that make people for some people, they lose hope, and they try to give up but most of the people they be they become more convinced that you need to resist the revolution. So the military itself is the main source of this, this movement, but we need to have a direction of this how to how to how to use this forces, how to use this route, the resistant power effectively and in a in a sustained way. Yama is, as you know, it's a country with the longest civil war in the wall that the ongoing civil war in the wall and, and to change that we need to see the complexity and the internal divisions of the forces even among each entity, like for military, there's always inside there's not one people there's always a combination of people with different ambitions and we need to see which people we want to empower in which people we want to dis Anchorage. So these kinds of like seeing in a very analytic level, like even a person there's like good intentions and bad intention and evil thoughts. So like, right now everyone thinking as a rigid entity, like military is one like there's only one there's like, everyone must be the same thinking the same approach, like the same model a revolutionary force, like every revolutionary force must be the same, they have good intention by these kinds of very rigid, reductionist thinking is problematic that creating to a to extreme power battle rather than creating a very nuanced and like diverse approach to carry out because most of the time and violence movement is focused on diverse actions and and embracing the power of different layers of of people. So, so, so I think we need to be diverse a real power entity and seeing this as not just a one identity and seeing as a different ideology, different power, different people, different parts, different motives, different stories and combining and and conflicting each other and on that approach, then we can find which ways in which story which people which thoughts and and and can be a better way and we can configure that level and, and that, on that approach. We don't need to feel much of course we need to be as a person, we don't want to be painful. We don't want to be threatened, we don't want to be get killed. But if we have if we clear of this, how to use this forces, we don't we can use the military operation as a power to mobilize the resistance right now the military or press a lot. But we have of course, people also resist a lot like people resist. But but they that power that forces of the people need to be somehow collected in a bigger picture in a bigger story tan, then I think we don't need to talk much on military. Yes, I understand lots of people talk about military, it's brutal. That's how we don't need to we cannot do we cannot do that. That's, that's somehow I think that somehow losing our, our own agency, what we can do what we can bring changes, so So we cannot, for me, that's why I don't focus much what military even though I consider as an actor, but that what matter is like, from where we start change, like from inside from ourselves, from the people closing to closest to us, or the people who seems aligned with our efficients. So that part is more important because the force is already there. Right now, there are lots of force actually the force or even larger than the military existence. But that the problem right now I face I think that the current movement facing is we don't have we don't we don't have a solution to work together these different forces of the counter repressive to the or to the military oppressions.
Host 1:51:47
I appreciate you taking all the time to answer these questions. I have just a few more as I'm conscious of your time and trying to also bring the common concerns and misunderstandings that that we've heard voiced about non violence at this current time. And another one to give voice to, would be the argument people have made that like, look, we've obviously 1988 did turn did have some violence on the part of the protesters and activists but if you look at the 2007 Saffron Revolution, I mean, could you find a more beautiful example than Buddhist monks marching in unison to try to calm pagoda and downtown Yangon chanting the metta suta, chanting, you know, wishing for all beings to be happy for all beings to be safe and having lay supporters Buddhists as well as non Buddhists that are shielding them from violence on either side as they as they walk down. And then of course, we see the absolutely brutal response that comes in the middle of the night of just these horrific accounts of of death and murder and violence that occur in monasteries to be able to shut that down followed by really a intentional perversion propaganda campaign to, to, to ensure that doesn't happen again, by getting in to the Sangha, and we have 969, developing the anti Islam movement. And then looking after the 2021 coup that there was, you know, there was a sustained, non violent manifestation, again, chanting meta of, of promoting non violence at every level. And I mean, just having and it was just remarkable. And it was, it's something that, you know, to this day, it's it's bothersome, that this is not known around the world for just how incredible this was. I mean, you had masses of people, you had 1000s of people that were just organically taking to the streets. And the organization was impeccable, you know, and there were people we interviewed some of them, there were people that were that were just everyone kind of found their role. There are people that were playing music, there were people that were picking up trash, there are people that were making food for free, there were there were others that were that were making sure there was enough sanitation and food and water and such. And so you you had this incredible organic movement, like nothing I've ever seen or ever heard of around the world, where there that when you have that many people together, and when you have that many emotions at play, it's really difficult to keep that kind of all in check. There. There are some bad actors or some people who get kind of emotional in the moment or mob mentality, and then to make things worse, then you have the military actually trying to instigate violence by as they usually do by having thugs that are dressed up as something else to try to provoke people to violence and that doesn't work. I mean, there were stories of you know, these drunken or drugged people sent by the military to go terrorize you stabbing people with knives in the crowds or you know, going to poisoned water supplies or just these terrible things and their stories of these people being detained but not punished you know, just detained and, and and bound so they don't cause harm but but not attacked violently. Yeah. And so you know, when you look at the examples of the Saffron Revolution in those early days and the 2021 protests, there, there have been voices that say, Look, we going back to what we said before, like, what else do you want us to try? You know, what other examples do you need, like, look at look at what was done in the Saffron Revolution and look at what was done in the first several weeks or months of the protests after the military coup and tell us what precedents you can find anywhere from around the world anywhere historically, that can compete with the nobility and the the mission and the ethics of what was happening in these two instances. And look how that look at the military's playbook every single time it's not working. And so I'm not I'm not saying this from my voice, I'm not I'm conjuring up voices that I've heard so many times, and I'm sure you've heard that have pointed to these incidents and saying, like, look, this is this has been tried. And this is the result every time we need to adapt and innovate. And so when you look at these historical examples from your own country, and how they occurred, and and yet, you're willing to still invest and still try, where how do you respond to that criticism? Because I'm sure that's another thing that you've heard very often.
Ye Htet 1:56:21
Yes, thank you for the reflection of our past movements, and these are really powerful, as you mentioned, really inspiring and remarkable, truly remarkable. I somehow feel like I'm very pessimistic these days, like that, like in this conversation, because I tried to normally try to criticize a lot, but yeah, I of course, I as non violence. Believer, I am i i I see the importance and the power of these movements still linking to these days and but still yes, no, this conversations is is thinking about the cup that we have and seen from different angles. So, I would like to argue again, like try to see what are the missing points, even though there are lots of like, as I also mentioned before, there are lots of results happening at the time and also till now. Yes, one of the things that I that I feel kind of people like pay less attention is that people focus on the movement, but people rarely think about creating a strategy or the or the sustained sustained movement plan likes organizational structures, like how to contain so like, like, like comparing with the like, colonial civil resistance movement at the time also starting from like 1920 There's pro nationalist pro booties movement, like coming like from lots of like nationalist organization, these are also non violent movement, they come as not just an event, there are also lots of protest strike a lots of movement, they're trying to resist against the British colonial, but they try to form as a as a structure like like alternative education system, an alternative organization, they create a lot of them most of them are in like, have no affiliation, affiliation with the honor system. So like that's also important part. So that it can sustain their they can build the legitimacy by the people power. And if of course, the British want to kind of repress that, but if we repress that they give the larger they they have to sacrifice some of their reputation some of the damage a lot so like gradually these movement can come with a decade's long plans. And that's impacting to current Myanmar of course the somehow affecting like extreme nationalist narratives sometimes leading to lifestyle and power but like these are still influential in current Myanmar thinking current Burmese thinking, current Myanmar society thinking so this Nanfang letter campaigns are always go impactful like and long lasting. Like 9890 88 Also it has lots of like throughout the Semitic years long like all the anti dTT or all the anti military campaigns made by a lots of groups, pro democracy actor, ethnic armed groups, a lot of actors, 90 Ada was considered as one of the most prominent time that is near to the achievement lights and also people think that's a turning point and also it tends like it's contribute to some of the significant changes. Also in like the Saffron Revolution are also saying like, yes, like after suffering revolutions, there's also a significant change in the light that today It's an unconstitutional 2010 transition happened largely because of the Southern revolutions. I also be brought like lots of people like my might agree that like the 2021 revolution, also thinking that this is like the early days of like, anti movement thinking that this is these are the closest moment to achieve the democracy a pure democracy system. So these are the hope that we have the most hopeful, inspiring, and the most United time that we have, but the problem is we cannot create a sustained plan so so that's I would like to that's the difference between like the colonial movement, like, like for ism or like a like for evolution, as you mentioned, lots of moms are involved in like pro democracy movements, because of the the trigger point is because of the fuel price, price rapid rising, so like most of the movement issues in it 88 Also, there's a trigger point of like, de monetizing some of the some of the monitoring notes. And then I include us in writing why because of the military coop so these these are the like trigger point and people people are kind of awakened, it's like a shock, it's a shortcoming at the time that the mobilize the organizer, the movement leader need to have need to prepare the complete plan, because at the time everyone wants to go something, but the thing is, if there is no enough planning for the trip, then it's reached to like different places and and cannot succeed. So, so, yes, of course, like many people are saying like this movement failed because of the military, I will say yes, military play an important role, but what matters most is like, like, what we what we can do, what are the things that are in our hands that can improve better life for military like like even like for the like, comparing to the Saffron Revolution, the military also kind of funded like in the past decade from 2010 to 2020. They tried to create a campaign Pro, a nationalist mob attack campaign, with a very sustained strategy, I will say they create a light they embedded in the education system, they are embedded in the community system, the embedded in the Montessori education, they create that they they invest in long term plan and at that time, also the pro democracy act and activists they want to fight, but the thing is, they cannot engage enough and they try to limit with the law using power. So so you know that that's the difference. They tried to oppress, but still this Mahabharata like many of them Amata monks are like detained and and and were entered, but but still this still happen lots of impacts on the current legitimacy, current people support for the for the military, I mean, that the core supporter of the military, using this as a as a way to expand the puppet support. So, so, I see like, we cannot see that's why we cannot see as the movement tie only we need to see the longer picture like how what are the movement strategy and then what are the movement planning enhance organizational structures and utensil leadership's So, these are the important aspect I will say and as you mentioned, yes, like these 2021 revolution are truly remarkable the people as a really supporting to the to the best. And, but there is like lots of weakness in organizational structure puppet like try to open even right now like we cannot open enough public participation like right now you know, lots of people are competing, like people need to walk more by actually people really want to like lots of people really want to take part in the Revolution. But apart from holding arms and making money and donation they have very little role like maybe clicking and like signing imputation these kinds of things they can do but apart from that there's there's a very limited way that the that the leadership can can can can can show off that's why I think these are the things that need to be considered another problem or another issue that we have facing these days like like there's a civil resistance scholars Erica you know what once the like after three 3.5% of the whole population joining the civil resistance movement, that movement is likely to win, but still Myanmar have lots of likes for CDM movement around half of the server cement joins us join this this strike so like
so better doesn't happen. So I also want to figure out the what are the factors that's happening and one of the thing is that also social media. So social media contribute largely to to help people mobilize movements disseminate information easily, like just by the posts, you can you can make a protest next, like tomorrow like you, you just need like very convenient tools, but that also making very easy to breaking down because once after finishing the protests, people become separated and like the proof As movement, if you want to mobilize a movement, let's say a 1000s, or like 10s of 1000, you need to really commit a lot to communicate, to build understanding to convince. So these hard working, really pay off and sustain has a sustained impact by the social media. It's easy to go to communicate, easy to mobilize, but it's really hard to organize. That's why in CDN everyone said, we are all leaders and we don't need the leaders in the strike. People say we are all just walking, we don't need to strike committee. So like, these techno thing, like still continuing and, and so like, leading towards a populist movement in a way that like, people can only support like, like people can be can only audience like, like, like supporting money or clicking like on the social media, but, but really hard to think about what kinds of participation that we could open up. So like, and there is no strategy, like thinking like, because everything is like collecting colluding as one like the revolution, every armor is on resistant and civil resistance and like international resistant, everything needs to be combined as one pot. It's really hard for the ordinary people to join, I will say so like, these kinds of aspects that we need to consider if we want to create a sustained action. So like, I will say, like, as you mentioned, most of the time, people see the visible action, the surface level, like the protest that action, the right action, I will say. But what most important is these, the more and more important is like the structures or strategic thinking the fiction behind this movement. So like movement itself is in a in a battle in a war. It's a battle only. But we need a larger war efficient, we need a larger thinking that I'm maybe I'm saying repeatedly again, again, but I think that's quite missing in the current thinking.
Host 2:06:45
No, that's brilliant, I really appreciate that. And I really appreciate the focus on participatory participatory action. I, I love hearing that. And I can understand how, after an initial period where it seemed like there was so much creativity and so much involvement in every direction, that they're things that become siloed, somewhat, and at the same time, we're also seeing at higher levels, we're seeing greater ethnic participation, participation and collaboration to an extent that we haven't seen so much before. And that's that's a bright side. But I do think that more conversations participation on our lower level, or mid range level, whatever you want to call it, I think is so it's just so valuable people finding their space, finding their voice, find finding their contribution. And, you know, that's also what we hope conversations like these are doing, even though you and I are the only ones talking and we're we're talking in real time to an audience that doesn't exist, you know, at some point, that future audience will materialize. And hopefully, they will be that that third person in the virtual room with us, they will be nodding their heads or arguing with us as as sitting listening as a good conversation will do. And that, you know, and moving beyond that to, to opening up wider conversations that happened in private that happened between groups, you know, we've done panels before, and we've tried to hold our panels differently than then how I often see them online, where they're more like, like experts that are talking down or leaders that are focused on their vision. We've tried to hold them more as like kind of town halls where we have will will have certain panelists that are coming together to talk about their views, but very much wanting it interactive and engaged with the people that are coming to to feel like they have a voice and they're able to talk and participate. I just think I can't emphasize that participation element enough and the value of that. And so I really appreciate that answer. And I want to ask, there's a final question I have. I mean, there's so many more questions I can ask because this is a such an important topic. It's one that after the initial months, we've really not heard much about, we've heard a lot about the difficult decision of those that have decided different routes, and we've talked with them extensively. But I was really happy when you and your group came on the radar to be able to return back to this very important vision. And I've learned tremendously of many things on my side have been clarified. One final question I have on my mind is, I think what's what's also kind of unique about this current situation is you basically have these two entities that are fighting for legitimacy, that might even be reductionist to say two entities. It's probably much more than that. But to just simplify it, we have obviously the military regime and then we have some kind of coalition between the old NLD the N ug and UCC, the ayos era was etc. that are that are trying they've been called a shadow government. That's not very nice term, a parallel government. They've been called the legitimate government, many different names and terms. But this is different in the sense that it's not like in many of the other historical examples we're looking at where Really looking at one regime, that that is unequivocally holding power, and then a movement that is either trying to uproot them, or to at least create greater equity and safety and fairness for a minority community within that place. But this is not exactly what's happening Myanmar, it's a much messier and more complicated situation, where I'm going with this is that this other entity, well, you have these two entities, and obviously the military is, is is, is obviously using violence and terror at every opportunity that I can, but then you have the other entity, that, you know, they then ug, publicly declared, I think it was called the defensive war. And, and, and as this entity that is trying to represent the legitimate governance, it is officially informally aligned with its own ministry of defense, its own its own military. And of course, as any legitimate ruling authority anywhere they have, at their disposal, the means of violence, the means of being able to use police and military to restore order and to, to use as they see this is this is a right of this is considered to be a right and part of the social contract and in any country and the society. And so it's not like you can't really compare this to any other situation where there's a movement that is proceeding in a violent way. And then another movement, which is also in a non violent way. And you're kind of looking at these two together, because you have this supposedly legitimate authority and the nature of the N ug, that is that has publicly informed and formally called upon its right, to be able to use force to defend itself and defend its people against the military aggression. And so do you see? Do you feel somewhat of a complicated or awkward relationship between their their formal statement and their role, their ministry of defense PDFs, the Ayios, and the actions and operations that they're undertaking is not as a band or a movement but as claiming legitimacy in their own right, and your pathway towards non violence? How do you see this relationship? And how is that similar different to some of these historical examples?
Ye Htet 2:12:29
So yes, as you mentioned, we can like in a reductionist view, we can see there's a two power struggle like two power entities struggling from one side, that's sa C from one psi psi coalition's of pro democratic actors and the elected elected members of Parliament's together. So like this legitimacy. Debate is also it's very relevant these days also because like, just like in the past week, the CIB extended into that and limited time. And also, other regionals CRS like the Regional Committee also try to draft their own lore, using theirs, using the legitimacy so this this for me, I will say like there is some Yes, there is some thing to be concerned about this line of thinking about legitimacy as a way to, to gather a public support and also international support to fight against military dictatorships. Because like, there's also different ways of defining legitimacy. And like most of the time, when we say like legitimacy, we say, like, there's the jewelry that's coming from, like, like public support, and that de facto that's coming out the real abilities. As you mentioned, in the reduction of swayed, we can see there's a legitimacy struggle between military and the pro team aggressive pro democracy actress, correlations led by energy and sec and crbh these kinds of entities. But for me, what I see difference with our our standpoint to to, to, to the legitimacy approach is that like, we see legitimacy as a way not just about puppet support, it's about leading towards change. And it's about leadership. It's about thinking about public participations. So right now, legitimacy is focusing mainly about, we have elected we have public support on social media. That's why we should rule like these kinds of thinking from that base has very limited to create a conversation between different actors to have a unifying vision. So that's it One plotline because most of the time, we are declaring that this revolution is not just about the coop, it's more than that. It's about changing the whole system we declare like that. But but but but still we are saying that because of that, like we are like, but still, if we are standing on this legitimacy background, which is coming that we should rule, like who should rule on based on public support, then that's, that's creating a divisiveness and also misleading to the international community also, because International Commission might think like, okay, these are the people who don't get like they get elected, but they don't get power. That's why they want to get their power back. So like this is, this is a one club and I think that Espen Another problem is like, when we say like social contract, and the legitimacy we see like it is it's not just like, like who should rule it's about the wising visor accountability. So at least like when you go when you want to go to democracy, there needs to be a check and balance power, and also the public rights to the to the right information. So these kinds of things are kind of missing, I think in the current form, like, it's really hard to see the check and balance and the rule of law in the current entities like, we don't know who is appointing the minister of defense, who is I have which role the president play or which role the Prime Minister play, how's the RBA show and UCC is like checking and balancing with annually, we don't know like, they are just doing with the like, like they say, because I coming from the electric background, and then we get public support from social media. So this is legitimately seen as a public support only has a problem. And it could lead to the populace lines of thinking apart like leading from deviating from the democracy. So that one concern that I have another thing about the about the war and energy. Well, I would say like the parallel government thinking it could be a method, but it is not the solution. Like it's not the one and only solution. So. So we will try to like, collaborate on whatever we can but doesn't mean we think that's the best way. Because that coming from the top down thinking like these members, the people will create a discussion that elect attars like that, and ug mot or like the ER or they were discussed, and then they will create their vision rather than creating a real radical change or transformation. Rather than that we try, they try to think from the power base. So this is really I think, not productive. Also, this is also trapping, I would say in the conflicts battle, complex or power battle in them. And that's how we have seen in the past three years, this conversations are like they always say they have some agreement, but there is no visible significance indicator of like, collective visions. So these are the and more and more we have, we have clearly seen that everyone wants to think about their region only, not in a collective story map approach. So like this is the province, I will say thinking on the power dynamics, like it's considering legitimacy with leading towards more power conflict. So we should focus legitimacy. So what kinds of solution that people want, and how can we bring people in the, in the in the in the activism. So that's, that's a democratic vision that we should have, like legitimacy itself is a tool. And if we don't use properly, it could be just a reactive and it could block our Congress, our dialogue, our dialogue process.
Host 2:18:35
Thank you for that answer. And thank you for all the time you've taken with us today about this topic, which we've seldom heard from the last several years and to know, the work that you're doing. And this, I think, this critical really, to shine a light on this, this critical examination of what this mindset and this movement that is still occurring. We don't hear about this so much given the turn that things have taken. But it's it's great to know what's out there and to understand it in more detail. And also to just I appreciate you taking on just a slew of hard questions. And I'm sure you've many of which you've heard from before to really get it this, this honest conversation and reflection that allows us to uncover this thinking and methodology to a greater extent so so thank you so much for taking that time. And before we go, is there any last thing you'd like to add?
Ye Htet 2:19:30
No, thank you. Thank you so much for your thoughtful conversation and the opportunity, too.
Host 2:19:53
We want to take a moment to introduce you to our nonprofit better Burma's online shop, which features handicraft source from artists and coming Unity scattered throughout Myanmar, far from being mass produced knockoffs. The pieces we offer are unique and handmade, reflecting the wide diversity of different peoples found throughout the country. When Myanmar experienced its transition period moving from democracy and the late 2010s, after decades of harsh military dictatorship, many Burmese crafts people hope their beautiful work could finally be appreciated beyond the country. When Myanmar experienced its transition period moving towards democracy in late 2010s. After decades of harsh military dictatorship, many Burmese crafts people hope their beautiful work could finally be appreciated beyond the country's borders. But sadly, this was not to be so. Following the military coup, many skilled artists in suddenly found all possibility of continuing their livelihood closed off and began struggling just to feed their families. With this in mind, we prioritize working with artisans from disadvantaged and vulnerable backgrounds, because we know just how hard it can be to survive at the margins of society and Myanmar. This includes such people as those with disabilities, mothers who have contracted HIV AIDS, civil servants on CDM, ethnic and religious minorities and more. To view these wonderful pieces, please visit alokacrafts.com That's aloka A L O K A C R A F T S one word, alokacrafts.com. Otherwise, please consider a donation to our usual channels. 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 it 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 a nonprofit mission that or Burma. Any donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fun. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website better burma.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause and both 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@better burma.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 alokacrafts.com Thank you so much for your kind consideration and support.