Transcript: Episode #208: “Why Has Myanmar’s Democracy Movement Been Ignored?” (Panel Discussion)
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 0:14
You're about to hear a panel discussion that was recently recorded live, regular listeners to this platform may find the dynamic of the show somewhat different than in our usual long form interviews. For one, you'll of course be hearing several voices talking together in conversation, rather than an interview of a single guest. Also, there may be some differences in the sound quality, as the various participants are not using the same technologies to connect virtually to the event. But perhaps most notably, unlike with our podcasts, we are not doing any extensive post production. So you may notice that the conversation has more of a free flowing and organic feel distinct from the more polished nature of podcasting, we invite you to check out our website as well, where you can see the accompanying video of this panel discussion. And for those of you who may like to tune in wire to our upcoming panels, where you can also ask questions directly to the guests, we invite you to check out our website or any of our social media feeds to learn more about our forthcoming program. But for now, sit back and enjoy the interesting discussion that the follows
Nandar Min Swe 1:21
my role, maybe major role that I take in this spring revolution is a fundraiser. That's what I had been doing from day one, get go. And that's what I'm still doing until now. There will be little edit the roles that I play, but compared to being a fundraiser, nothing else is a big role. So thank you for letting me be part of this awesome discussion. And by the way, I do as a living as a physician that has nothing to do with it. But that's the other profession. I know. So Andres a slash give us. Thank you.
Host 2:00
Great, thank you for that. Let's next hear from Philip.
Philip Annawitt 2:03
Hi. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, everybody. My name is Philip COVID. I came first to Myanmar in 2014 2014 was working with the UN at the time democratic governance specialists. So I work with some governments and Parliament's around the world. I was based in Myanmar worked with the parliaments both at the national level and state and regional does, and also with some central institutions, mostly the Ministry of Finance, and the ministry of the Union government office. And since the coup, which has shocked me as much as all of you. I've been active on Myanmar, mostly advising development partners NGOs on their programmatic response. And I've been doing some some volunteering on the site, supporting the let's say revolutionary forces. Looking forward to this. Thank you.
Host 3:08
Great, thank you. And now let's hear from theory.
Thiri 3:12
Yeah, good afternoon. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to people around the world. So my name is theory and I just happen to be born in Myanmar. So do involve in this kind of, you know, constant like conflict and everything. So I was, I am a human rights researcher for for the past 10 years, I work, I do the documentation, and then I retire or not retirement, I took a break from all this kind of human rights work for the past three years. And then I generally like to be fine. And I like to stay away from any of these political intellectual kind of thing, but because a coup happened and I have to involve and then I left the country I was in a country after the coup for a year and then I have to leave the country so I am the new generation of leaving country because of the political instability in the country really looking forward to hear from everybody.
Zoe Wild 4:15
Thank you everyone. Joe, did you want to do those first two introductions again to for the recording?
Host 4:23
Oh, yes, I suppose the let's let's do that again. And also we have people still coming in. So if if we could just go back to the first couple of guests who introduce themselves and do that again, Igor, if you can, you can you can do a once more. Take two of your involvement in the environment.
Igor Blazevic 4:44
Hello, everybody and thank you for inviting inviting me it was it is really a pleasure to join all of your so I have a very long history of relations with the Myanmar I'm I have a Myanmar friends already 32 35 years people who have started to be involved in a struggle for the freedom and democracy in 88. And in floss Emily, I'm Bosnian, but I'm leaving in a check. And that was a little bit like like a negative mural, we need in a nine go got our own freedom. And basically, after getting our own freedom, we have been really kind of developing significantly. And on the other side, let's say the people of the Myanmar who rose up in 88, have been sitting in Vegas and sitting in a house arrest. So for us, it has been like our own story, but the negative negative side, and that has been emotionally very strong attachment to us. But then my main engagement with the Myanmar or the deepest one was between 2011 and 2016, when I was living in a country and running comparative political science courses, for the activists for the former political prisoners, and that is the time when I developed a very, very strong relations with the many people from the ethics, civil society, political parties, APA generation NLD. And many of my former students are now heavily involved in the spring revolution. So after the attempted coup, I simply started to every single day, let's say Be in touch with them and do whatever I can do to help the spring revolution prevail.
Host 6:19
Thank you very much for that. And then let's hear once more from Mike, if you can introduce yourself.
Michael Haack 6:25
Hi, my name is Mike. And I first got involved in Burma related things in 2002. And I was an undergraduate and I visited Mesa, Thailand and Burma on the other side of the border. And you know, I've been involved in various capacities since then I worked at US campaign for Burma doing congressional advocacy for a couple of years, left when Burma began, its quasi democratic period, I still stayed in touch with the country visited a bunch studied some Burmese so as in London, although I don't remember a word of it. And then when the coup happened, I, you know, got sucked back in been working on the Burma act, basically full time, or more than full time from the queue until recently when a pass now working on things about implementation of that, and the berm act is in the United States. So nice to meet all of you. Excited for the talk.
Zoe Wild 7:24
Thank you. And we'd love to hear more about the Burma acts later, we've been following your work closely. For those who haven't attended a panel before and missed the beginning of the recording. I'm Zoe Wilde, founder and executive director of one light global, we're an international humanitarian organization. And on a personal level, I lived in Myanmar from 2006 to 2008. And it just changed my life Being there. It's my it's a country holds a special piece of my heart. And so this work is so important to me. So, recently, we were just looking yesterday at how in total, the United States has committed more than almost 25 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration. We've been my organization personally has been working with the Syrian earthquake and Turkey earthquake, and the US has provided 85 million in humanitarian aid. And the US is also providing aid to many other countries that are in war or developing or strategically important to the US. Pakistan, Colombia, Sudan, so many of us are sitting here on the sidelines going Why is this not happening for Myanmar? Why? Why has there not been as much Western engagement in this conflict as in other conflicts around the world? And we'd like to start with you, Igor, because we know that you've been involved in Ukraine and Bosnia and other conflicts, to hear what your perspective is on why the global community is not responding in the same way.
Igor Blazevic 9:05
So there are really complex reasons and multiple reasons. And I think in the discussion, we will touch, let's say many, many of them, let's say But let me start a little bit on a really very general level, because I think there are three underlying ways of thinking which are in a certain way preventing outside players to get more involved. So the first and I call them authoritarian bias, the Goliath bias and the stability bias. And then these are like, like almost kind of like a prejudice which influence the thinking and the choices which policymakers do even before they start to concretely think about what to do in a Myanmar. So, the authoritarian bias is a clear one. authoritarians have inclination to assist other authoritarian as they are terrified from the People's Power, and they don't have a in principle problem with the elite to Java politics less so. So they don't, in theory have a problem, let's say to deal with the answer Suchi because she's also in this elite Elite political game, let's say but when they see the real genuine people power in the streets, demanding freedom and democracy against the established regime, they'll authoritarians helps other authoritarians. And that's where China comes where the Thailand comes, where the LAO Cambodia, Vietnam comes. But then we have May I can mention Russia that Russia is another another. Not another story Russia is a spoiler Russia is is a somebody who basically whenever they have opportunity to disrupt and spoil, they use the opportunity and go and disrupt and spoil. But then we have another thinking. And that was something what I call the Goliath bias, which is much more important for us. And it means the assumption that at the end of the day, in today's world, the brutal, ruthless and resourceful Goliath will always prevail at the end over date. That was the assumption. And pretty much everybody in the international community made that assumption when the coup happened, and many of them are still very much influenced by this way of thinking. And that explain the position of the UN agencies in a Myanmar that explains position of the diplomat center, Myanmar, that explains India that explains Japan that explains Australia. They simply profoundly believe that at the end of the day, the junta will prevail, and they want to have their eggs in the nest. The fourth reason, the most critical one, that's where we are usually Canada, inspired by democracy by freedom, but human rights, but that knots high priority on anybody's list in today's politics, what is the high priorities of stability, and the countries around the world, not only the neighboring country prefer authoritarian stability over chaos, or a situation in which they believe let's say the country will fall into the war of everybody against everybody. An assumption in the Myanmar is that if the military is out of the game, that's it, there will be no central government. And we will have a collapse of the state, which will sooner or later finish in a war of everybody against everybody else. This is profoundly wrong reading what's happening in a Myanmar, but it is the prejudice, which is influencing pretty much everybody. And then let's say this is something why all stakeholders basically try to achieve something, what they call the negotiating dialogue between all stakeholders, and that means junta as well. And what we need, let's say when we are approaching internationals, we meet need primarily to address these two prejudice, let's say the Goliath prejudice and stability prejudice. So this is just my kickoff letter, for the for the beginning of the discussion.
Host 13:27
Thank you very much for that. We're next going to hear from Mike and Mike, as someone who has been on Capitol Hill for years, you've seen the narrative surrounding Burma change with the times can you walk us through those changes and describe what you've seen post coup, and maybe also touch upon how you would describe the current political well in Washington now? And finally, if you can touch upon, how important is it seen a message of Pan Myanmar solidarity in the US right now?
Michael Haack 14:01
Sure, yeah. Well, it's okay. A lot. So I, I would start off by, you know, agreeing with the first speaker, and I would, I would split up those sort of like, you know, we're talking about the world response, and the world is a lot of different things. And the US government, which is the small thing that I'm focused on is a lot of different things. And so those sorts of biases, I think, that you're talking about are seen mostly in the federal agencies like the State Department, the people who are in charge of implementing foreign policy. The the Congress, the US Congress is not run by rationality. It's run by passions. And to the extent that the Burma like, like Burma policy has been like pro democratic pro the movement over the past 30 years. It's because it's been in the hands of the Congress, like not the rational part of it. Government, the part of the government that's like, passionate about stuff. And the thing that it used to be passionate about was the Democratic narrative centered around Aung San Su, G. And that sort of inspiration about her story. I mean, obviously, it's this taking place took place in a much larger sort of context of like the end of history and like the triumph of democracy, like and all that, that that was a salient narrative, you know, 2030 years ago, and not a salient narrative anymore. But, you know, be that as it made, like, like Antoine sujeet, and that narrative about the MLD really drove us policy because it drove Congress, and Congress pushed the other agencies. I, when I worked at US campaign for Burma, literally, like Antoine said, you would write letters, we would get them and we'd give them to Mitch McConnell. And that's like, how policy got made. It's a little bit bizarre to think that, but it's true. Um, you know, but then the Rohingya crisis happened and her image of like this kind of, I think, this fairy tale really, that people
16:20
like myself
Zoe Wild 16:27
we're having a little bit of a challenge to try.
Michael Haack 16:30
As true Speedo. Sorry, I'm in this like, bizarre hotel in Chiang Mai. It's, it looks like a thank you. Okay, so anyway, so you can't sell it on that narrative anymore. Because what most Americans know about Burma is that, you know, there was this woman who used to think was very inspiring. And then she seemed to have some ambiguous role and then in a genocide, and, like, that's what most Americans know. And so that narratives kind of dead. And I think another narrative hasn't really replaced it. I mean, like, the better narrative that we try and sell is like, okay, but now it's everybody against the coup, and people learn from what happened and etc, etc. But it's a little bit more complex to sell that. That it's made the US Congress weirdly split because Mitch McConnell stays in the onsens ug camp and literally everybody else is in Oh, I thought the problem was ethno nationalism camp. And because he's the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, it's been like hard to pass things, although I think we're getting past that. Um, I mean, I think you know, because this is about the world, not just the US like, you have a similar problem in Indonesia, right? Like Indonesia has a majority Muslim country, when they think of Burma, they think of the Rohingya crisis. They're, they're cheering Ozzy on, they're like, better than the previous chair. But I, you know, you have a similar thing, where if you're trying to get the passions of the population, like you no longer have a clean story, like you used to. If you're trying to go with a more rational part of the government, you know, you have the same problem in a lot of places where you have that bias that the first speaker talked about, where, you know, the people in charge are the ones who they assume will remain in charge, even if they're just in charge of half the country. And so it's hard to make the argument than that, like, no, there's this revolution, and it's winning and etc. I mean, the US, we also have the problem of like, you know, we just care a lot about our relationship with Thailand a lot more than we do about our relationship Burma, for obvious reasons. So you have all these different things pushing against it. And so,
Zoe Wild 18:51
these four Could you just say that really quickly? Sure.
Michael Haack 18:55
Well, so like, like Thailand is is a treaty ally of the United States, we have like very close military to military relations with Thailand like so. It's even mutual defense pack. If someone invades Thailand, the US Army would show up. If they were very close allies in the Vietnam War. We have very close economic ties with Thailand like her Campbell or Asia as our before he became the Asia czar ran something called the Asia group, which is basically like a business consultancy firm that has business interests all over Asia, like, particularly with Thailand. And so you know, there's just like there's military and economic ties with Thailand that that just run very, very deep. And you know, we're afraid of them kind of ending up in the quote unquote China camp. And so you know, when they tell us not to sanction Myanmar, oil and gas that the US listens very closely to that. And so and you You know, Thailand, you know, has their own problems with sort of like ethnic separatist military organizations, and so they look at Burma through that lens. And so, you know, there's just a lot of trouble to get in Thailand on board with the sort of what what we would want the US priority to be. And, you know, the US priority, unfortunately, is is, is its relationship with Thailand. So, yeah.
Host 20:28
Great, thank you for that. Let's move to Nandurbar. Now, and Nando, you've played an important role in energy fundraising efforts since day one. So we're gonna get a different perspective from you coming from the inside. And yet, as you've shared in a recent podcast discussion, there has not really been great success and engaging communities beyond the diaspora, which is now somewhat breaking their back as they tried to carry this burden, still two years on. So I know that you have several theories as to why the fundraising and advocacy efforts have not quite been able to break through, can you share your perspective here?
Nandar Min Swe 21:04
Sure, I will just echo myself that I had spoken before with one on one with Joah. So that again, you know, my little corner of being a fundraiser, what I find is that our reach is pretty limited. We don't have celebrities on our end, right? Like we don't have anyone big and hotshot coming out and talking about Burma here and there. There were a few people who voiced their concern about the coup, including Michelle Yeoh herself, in the beginning, was, you know, she played the role of the lady or sensitivity. I guess she felt the connection with her at a personal level. But yet again, you know, she has life there is no more additional voice coming out of her. And we don't have any like Burmese born celebrities in high enough in Hollywood, or anywhere else. So there is no social media influence, there is no mainstream media influence by Burmese people, for Burmese people. And also we don't get non Burmese people influencing for Burma as well. Like, you know, back in the days, Bono was pretty strong about authenticity. Right. You too, was a big fan. But we really don't know where you to stand right now at this point. Right. And like Mike was saying, since Rohingya crisis, we got tainted, and Dawson City's image contended in the Westerners eyes. So we don't get that sympathy. We used to get back in 88 crisis anymore. So you know, atrocities are happening, everyday lives are being killed, houses are being burned down every day. But yet again, you know, those type of atrocities to be honest and fair is happening elsewhere in the world to right there were Goliath everywhere. And you know, those little people are being crushed every day. So when people have their own lives, they don't tend to care about those happenings, atrocities as much, unless it is to close your home. To be honest, when we are this drawn to this situation, because this is too close to home, right? I mean, when Rwanda huband, we do not feel this deep or this painful of a suffering for our own. So I don't blame people not being interested in our crisis or our issue. But our job, our duty is to make sure that they keep hearing about this, they keep seeing of all these, you know, to keep pushing into the mainstream media or any media that we can have access into. So, you know, again, as a Burmese as a fundraiser, as a grassroot person who doesn't have any reach to anywhere, all I can do and all I can keep doing is keep running up people to keep doing what they can make it be seen, be aware, be known. We got to keep talking about it. We got to keep up posting in our social media, we got to be open and frank to anyone who is showing a slightest of interest in who you are. By opening the conversations and carrying on the conversations, that is how we stay afloat or time to time floating again. So that's where I stand and that's how I feel as a normal regular Burmese person, what we can do as a diaspora anywhere in the world.
Host 25:00
Thank you. Thank you now don't just to follow up with one question on that topic, looking as someone who has been involved in fundraising for the N ug and trying to fundraise beyond the diaspora and because as we know these last few years that let's be frank, the diaspora has been carrying the democracy movement on their backs in every way. And this is this is not an elite class of Western society. We talked on our podcast about how your your efforts and trying to carry it beyond the ethnic groups and beyond the diaspora as a whole and to trying to reach local engagement, local meaning wherever one is based, in your case, California, in other cases, it would be other cities and other countries. And that not really been successful. Can you go into a little bit of detail of why you think it there hasn't been success at being able to bring on even among soliciting support and donations from just from normal people or local media? Why that hasn't been successful from from your involvement?
Nandar Min Swe 26:08
Yeah, so when I say the unsuccessful efforts, pretty much trying to reach out to the local media, to pay attention to what we're doing. So whenever we have like, those anniversaries, or, you know, like, go memory, Jeff rallies, we try to invite the local media to at least, you know, come for footage so that we can show up on like a Evening News as a three minute shot, but didn't happen. And again, number one thing I think is we as a regular citizen, just sending an email or, you know, filling their forms on their CVs website, or whatever, that Fox News that, you know, we are having this rally, you know, come in, support us or check us out. That type of I think the news is not flashy enough, or juicy enough for the news, anymore media anymore, there has to be something you know, out of norm, or usually the bad things make it to the headlines, right. So when this is a group of nationalities rally for their own country, that doesn't make it to any news. So there, we never had seen any news events coming out. You know, the only news media that we get coverage is our own Burmese news media, which is like only online media, not the mainstream. That's number one. Number two is about getting people to come out to see, you know, let alone donating that what we're doing. Obviously, it's like, whenever we say this is a fundraiser events for Burma, the kind of their other prior engagements or if they don't have prior engagements, they don't feel like coming out, it's like, oh, they're fundraising for the country, right. And, like I said, again, you know, whatever atrocities is happening, it's a little too far from them to feel to strike a chord, in their nerves. So, again, you know, we don't blame them. But we are trying to figure out how we keep falling flat whenever we try. So if we invite about 100 of our non Burmese colleagues and friends, we're lucky if only like 15 show up. You know, so the other thing I'm thinking, I'm not, again, I'm not blaming our non Burmese friends, if they were there, they can bring their other non Miss friends. So it's like, you know, the white faces a little important to be honest. So if we have some white face, walking around the fundraiser I need, it even attracts other bystanders or even people in the park, right? Like, if we were doing it as a park, they get more drawn to it. It's it's kind of I don't want to call it white privilege or anything, I don't want to go there. But yet again, you know, like, hey, even the Americans are involved in there, right? Even the logos are interested in that, what could be their thing, right, like, so the interest level becomes higher. So I think I'm hoping to collaborate more with our non Burmese colleagues to show up to be the presenting faces of our events, their their involvement, their presence. That's a lot of spice to our events. So that's where I will be venturing in the future. You know, like, Dave is our native. So Dave is attending our meeting right now. So Dave, you will be getting a lot more of my call to walk around our fundraisers.
Zoe Wild 29:57
Thank you so much dar Um, as someone who's been in the humanitarian field now for almost a decade, it is it's been extremely eye opening to see how differently the public responds to different crises. How overnight, I can raise, you know, $50,000, for Ukraine or for Syria, and really struggle for Uganda or Myanmar, to get a fraction of that, you know, we have last year, hundreds of 1000s of dollars for Ukraine. And I was thinking, because today is also the year anniversary of the beginning of the war in Ukraine. And it is all over the news. And yet they now is it two year now? Anniversary of the the attempted coup passed recently, right? Or is it three to two right? To right. That's right. It was also February, right. So how did that come and go is no medium mention. And we have the one year in Ukraine. And I think, as Mike spoke to the politics is complex, but the humanitarianism and the heart is really, in my experience, the response of the people comes from the media, that most people just don't know what's happening. And once it's spread all over the news, then they care. And having celebrities involved does help. Or having, you know, I was thinking about Invisible Children and the video that they shared, and that became ethically complicated. But that really brought attention to the issue. And so, you know, is there something that needs to happen? Igor, I saw you wanted to respond to Nandurbar.
Igor Blazevic 31:45
I just wanted to make, I just wanted to make a few few few quick remarks, remarks, let's say that, what Mike said said, let's say we are painted. So this is something what we simply need to accept and work with that. That's, that's reality. Number one, let's say that reality number thing is, in the last 10 years, the world became extremely complicated, and full of the very serious kind of disruptions, which has basically complicated everybody's lives all around the world. And there has been a significant shrinking of the people's attention on everything. That's it, people are so much exposed to the so many dramas, that people in a certain way switched off from many, many travel themes around the world. And this is another reality, we must accept that Ukraine is different. Yes, there is. There are certain moments when when when a certain kind of things drove capture everybody's attention. But Ukraine is our war. Ukraine is Western War, in which West is defending itself or the European democracies are defending themselves from something what they see their direct threat on them. That's so it's completely something different. Myanmar is not the national interest or security interests or the Europe, it's not even the security national interest of the on the order of the order of the United States. And this is the third reality. So so we should not compare in that sense ourselves with with the Ukraine, it's a different story. And we need to work with what we what we have. It's it seems like that.
Host 33:16
Thank you for that. And I'd like to move next to hearing from Philip. So Philip, on one hand, you've been very critical about side countries not doing more to support the N ug saying that it's simply not defensible. Additionally, you've argued with evidence that the N ug meets the basic definition of legitimacy, especially when one takes into consideration that they are not a peacetime government. On the other hand, you've also expressed concern about this, quote, culture of sacrifice that is embedded in the end ug, going back decades to the NLD, which inhibits a more sustainable bureaucracy from taking shape and perhaps even getting greater outside engagement. So from each side, can you describe how these factors have played a role in limiting greater foreign engagement than we've been seeing?
Philip Annawitt 34:06
Thank you very much. I just want to say I agree, I agree fully with what you just said. Now. I think these these comparisons between Myanmar and Ukraine are not helpful. I don't think they're very interesting that they may be interesting on a superficial level, but they're not very interesting when you when you look at the factors that are behind it for you. I'm European writes, For Europe, this is an existential threat to our way of living, this will always be the priority. There would not have been any chance of anybody providing any weapons in Ukraine had Boston Had this not been seen as an existential threat. So this is not politics as usual. This is crisis mode, as Igor has said, this is basically the West is at war as much at war as we can be at war here. In the state of our societies, I think right now. So that's that. As for the topic for the for the energy, I'm gonna, I'm going to try and make it very short what I've been arguing, I don't think we need to argue about the democratic legitimacy. We know the mandate, the electoral mandate from 2020, which is one element, you also know the broad response that the UG are getting, or the broader Democratic coalition, which is not just the energy, which is which is often forgotten. In media reporting. What is also important is, and that's what you've referred to in the introduction is the fact that the energy is actually acting as a government, it's not acting as a you shouldn't compare it with a peacetime government, you shouldn't compare it. We don't argue that they control x amount of territory. I know, there have been claims in the past that there's the majority of the country under energy control, all of that clearly is not the case. But the basic functioning functions of a government of an executive government are performed by the energy that's I think, established, which is basically, that they have they act like a government, they provide services in a number of areas, talk about education, talking about health. They have a public administration, in the form of the cdmos, some of 1000s of which are actually active in as a volunteer public administration, if you will. They have they have certain security presence, they have presence in local governance. We're all aware of the power past the public administration bodies and the V and ug and then the ethnic armed forces or ethnic revolutionary forces have their own administrative structures. These structures are in large part of the country's for people's daily lives more relevant than whatever it is that the junta is doing, which is not is certainly not government as as in government that has gives you any say, and makes decisions. The junta has a withering administration is what I would call it. And it's a militarized weathering administration stage zero service delivery, more or less going on in most parts of the country. And so if you go through these criteria that you usually apply to governments, including also the fact that there is a an evolving judiciary system, still basic and but involving, there's evolving Civilian Security, meaning these local security groups that are on the ground, you have the criteria of government. One thing I just briefly want to touch on, which has been mentioned, which which is a question that you haven't put directly to me here, but I think I think I want to comment quickly, is the question of why there isn't so much support, and why? Why support has not been forthcoming. And I don't think it's just as easy or has said, this stability bias. I think it's also a general lack of interest. If you look at Mike has already spoken a bit about the US. But if you look at the EU, for instance, in the region, the EU has a clear focus on what they want out of ASEAN, they have a clear focus on commercial relations. And now they see everything through the Ukraine prison, including in Austin, my wife happens to work for the EU. So I know, including everywhere they are, everything is Ukraine right now. So there is just not enough interest in a place like me. And I think that's effect. And that's something that can be changed through the media. That's something that can be changed to a certain degree by advocacy. But I don't think we're going to change that. Fundamentally, that's not going to change fundamentally. The other aspect that you asked me about that I just want to quickly touch upon is what you call what we call the culture of sacrifice. I'm not sure I would be as strong in my statement as you were as an inhibiting factor. I think this culture of sacrifice is what keeps this revolution alive. It is what keeps people in the diaspora, the people that Nanda works with and everybody else donating a significant amount of their incomes as you mentioned, Jay Have these incomes are not high, these are not rich people. Normally these are middle class people working class people. And it's also what sustains the CDM. Now, the public administration, that is a volunteer body, and we just have to think about this as 10s of 1000s of volunteers that are supported by communities that are forming an administration. It's quite remarkable. And I think these are some stories that I think haven't been told enough, there's some good stories to be told if you manage to grab people's attention. So that's one aspect. The negative effect of the culture of sacrifice may be that politics is very personalized. People are, who they are in the political, formal and informal hierarchy by their track record of resisting the military. That's basically what it is. And that is totally understandable from history, and from the political culture. But that also means that when two people get into a room that are very important, and they disagree, then things can go quick, can go wrong quickly and can be derailed. So it leads to a very personalized politics, that can be an inhibiting factor, when you have to mitigate so many different interests, as you have in a national unity government, right, even in any national unit government, but particularly probably the national unity government that has so many actors with limited experience of actually governing. I'll stop there for now. Thanks.
Zoe Wild 41:42
Thank you for I feel like you just brought in a lot of really powerful threads. And I can see people are already starting to put questions in the chat. But we'd like to speak to theory. First, before we open up the dialogue for questions. Theory, you've spoken about this dynamic of the People to People level, and this unified narrative that continues to come up in these answers. And also the need for credible information to go out to the public. And I'm curious if that is to the larger public or to the Burmese diaspora. Can you share more about what you feel like needs to happen to change the response?
Thiri 42:28
Thank you, sorry. So um, so what I see is a two level like one is the political level, which is the policy levels and everything, which is practically deadlock. That being said that, that that SAIC has been very step on that they don't really want to resolve I don't see any any intention of them wanting to resolve. And also a lot everybody does ended up with the ASEAN five point consensus, which is not really working at all. But that's the political dialogue, which I don't really want to touch upon that, because our other panelists have already said about this. So the other level, the people, two people can pay the fact that people don't know about Myanmar, I think yet, because we don't really, we couldn't really, then a lot of our information, a lot of our new a lot of the news about us happening other than the beginning of the beginning of the protests and everything for a guy remember, like two months straight every day, we are on the headline, headline of the news that was like, because when people remember Myanmar as some kind of, you know, people remember in your mind as the icon of the country with the icons of democracy and then fall from grace and like the Rohingya genocide, the whole country denying and then from there to this creative expressions, and I really, we came back to the global stage with more so much hope and so much possibilities and a lot we bring the positive news and positive energies to the wall. So that was the beginning, but then the crackdown happens and the the news are not there anymore. So, the one thing I will say that they have in needs for their credible information. At the moment the situation is that the service speaks that the non violence faith has been shrinking since since the movement has been shifted more towards the more towards the violence resistance which is protected and I have no opinions on that. But the thing is we have a shrinking of the of the civil space is actually in front of us perspective as a fixer myself working with the international media that the way international media work is more as the as the new story like you can't just invite them here we have a protest, please come and cover. That's not how my understanding that's not how they work. So we have to have a story of us and compelling story. So for that we need a credible information. At the moment, the situation on the ground is that it's very difficult for any of us to do the reporting, like journalists got killed, or they're not even done like their family members can be taken as whole stage or distant related and a lot of barriers and one journalist got arrested, they are not even charged with the charges related to the press, they will be charged with the Terrorism Act, or like they will they can get killed for supporting the puppet people, different poses and everything. So the situation on the ground is very difficult for us to do the news. And then we cannot really go to the ground, a lot of foreign generals cannot go to the ground. Like that's supposed to Ukraine, which I don't, I don't really like to compare, not for us, sort of like we shouldn't really compare about the 16 who that who suffer more, that's not the computation of suffering I, I am glad people stand up for injustice. But in terms of their credit, the internet getting incredible information on the ground, many places where the conflict was happening, like image Obama, in on the luckiest day, they could only get two G internet. So it's very difficult for us to get a credible information and a lot of the information we have been receiving on the social media, but we cannot just publish this kind of news and we cannot really communicate that kind of knew without the verification process. So that's why we became like, circulated among our Burmese language, social media and we didn't really produce, we couldn't really produce much out to the, to the world, which is not to blame anyone, but this is the practical challenges that we are facing. So for that, this is the situation of the credit credible informations and getting the difficulty of getting the information out. But we like to approach more on the people to people can pay give, doesn't matter how complex situation. People are, like different background of the causes of the conflict. It's a personal story, my personal human connection is very important. So we tried to shift our way me and my friends and a few new generation and creative people, we tried to shift our approach rather than hitting the deadlock with the with with rather than punching the wall, we are trying to find alternative way like different strategy to do the people to people can pay by telling our story in our own word, like we are not the pathetic little human from a complex society. We we want to approach to the war with hope and with love and with resilience. And we want to show people how we are living and how we are creating amidst all the tragedies and everything so that the war already have enough tragedy. We don't want to go we don't want to be crying baby and just tell people like, Hey, you should look at us. And no, that's not how we our generation wants to approach. We wanted to approach us like look at us look at the past 10 years, that openness, this is how we have come because of the openness for the past 10 years. But if we could have more time to to open, this is what we could drain to the wall. This is what we can contribute to any society that we go. So we've been trying to do the people to people can pay not to bring the tragedy, yes, we can inform about the violation. But we like to bring the new way of living, like how we are living, look at us, like, let's work together, you should help us not because of our tragedy, because we deserve to live just like you and everybody should work together. We shouldn't compete for any suffering. So I'm gonna stop here, but I can touch upon things later. Thank you.
Zoe Wild 49:02
Thank you theory. As always, it's so powerful when you share and coming from the humanitarian perspective as opposed to a policy perspective. I couldn't agree with you more that you're reminding me of that Margaret Mead quote, that the only thing that has ever changed history is a few group of committed a small group of committed people. And you bring up some really interesting points about perhaps how we can support youth to create more movements here rather than trying to get people to send money to direct aid and perhaps that would add more leverage. I'm curious. We've heard a lot about some of the challenges about the biases, about policy about the lack of PR, the need for a unified narrative, the the lack of funding and geopolitics, and I'm curious about solutions and how you feel out. And this is to all of the speakers, how you feel that we can shift what needs to happen to shift this, and why does it matter?
Michael Haack 50:08
Mike? Sure. Um, so I think just in terms of solutions, I think that like, and this is, again, sort of a policy thing, but like, I think one problem that the Verma movement has is like, there's all this sort of human rights informed ways of thinking about things where it's like, you write the report, you show the report to the policymaker, and then something happens where like, I don't think policy has ever been made that way, ever in the history of the world. And it but policy, I think, like, it's it's a power question. And like, you know, we had all these problems with the Burma act and getting it passed, right. The way we got it passed was we got a bunch of Baptists to support it, because there are tons of Baptists from Burma, and they live in the US now. And they vote Republican. And they're like, really kind of like involved in that particular political structure. And you know, like the like, right before the vermaak pass, like Mitch McConnell, literally call the a chin Baptist Church and talk to them. And it's the chin Baptist talking points that were incorporated into the Burma Act, the final version of it. So anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, like, I think thinking about, like, which constituencies or sort of natural constituency is and like, and who, and which ones of them hold power, right, like in the US, like, religious conservatives have a lot of power. And so And luckily, there's a lot of religious conservatives from Burma. So like, it's like, you know, like we're working on, you know, leveraging that. And I think it has to be thought about in those sorts of terms. And, and I don't know, until the extent that we think in those terms, I think we can win, I think to the extent that we're like, you know, hey, like I have this, like really well thought out rapport, and I'm gonna go show it to the policymaker. It's like, it's kind of a waste of time, I think, in my opinion. But anyway, so that's, that's my, that's my two cents.
Host 52:19
Thank you for that. And I saw that Phillip also had his hand raised, would you like to respond to that?
Philip Annawitt 52:26
Yeah, thank you very much. So I fully agree with with Mike there, I think that's what it is. What we, I think have to remember is that what you really need isn't that much support. Right? It's not like that you need the support that Ukraine gets, you don't need that support. You don't need it militarily. And you don't certainly don't need it on the civilian front. So I think focused action is very good. And I think the way that the in YuGiOh, if we talk about the efforts that have been made, have have mobilized and Gaspar is absolutely great. And this has been a success story. The way international engagement has worked hasn't always been as successful. What I would like to see is a shift to ASEAN. As weird as it sounds. There's a lot of effort from a lot of people on the US. And I understand the US because the US are critical because I tell you, the only ones who are putting any money anywhere are the US. There just isn't anybody else doing anything. And I say that accusing accusingly, I accuse the EU, I accused the Australians, I accuse everybody is just us. And that really has to change. And the costs are not big of doing that there is no domestic penalty for doing that. It's just the costs of not doing it are very, very low. Because there are no domestic penalties. There is no end Ukraine, again, is everything everybody thinks about. And so there's no brain space for that. That has to be changed, as Mike has said, through through advocacy. And I think that's important. And as for ASEAN I think there was a question also here in the comments that related to how important is Malaysia? I think very important, how important is the incoming chairmanship of Indonesia? Very, very important to current chairmanship of Indonesia, the fact that we're going to see a dialogue that for the first time includes the AUG. I'm not saying the solution will be dialogue between the junta and the energy. I don't think that but there needs to be international dialogue with the energy because that socializes the energy in this room. Well as part of the solution, because there are still a number of factors on the ground, that because there is so little pressure in their own societies, they're having positions that are detrimental. And I think Igor, you know very well what I'm talking about. I'll just say if the Swiss have been very naughty, in that sense, in Myanmar, where it doesn't carry a lot of domestic penalty, if and you get a lot of leeway, right, you have a very committed person out there in an embassy, especially for smaller countries, like my own Austria, or the case of Switzerland, where they get to make the policy of the country in this low priority country, like its individuals, they have pre existing relationships, they sell their views of the solution as the solution back home through their channels in their ministry. And it sort of ease the policy, because it is like low priority. And so it's even more dangerous in when the country is low priority. More bad things happen, more mess ups happen. And that's that's the same that one more thing, just very quickly that another example is Austria, my own country where we had the non accredited Ambassador being greeted by our president. So all of a sudden there pops up this picture of the non accredited Ambassador shaking the hands of my prison, and everybody thinks, what is going on? What's going on is that for a certain event where the diplomatic community was invited, there were people disinvited, there were people uninvited, uninvited were the Russians, the the fellow Russians. Yeah, the Russians, the Bella Russians, and the Iranians were uninvited. But nobody thought about the fact that you have an accredited ambassador from Myanmar that walks up there and shakes the hand off of the President. That's a huge propaganda victory for the junta. I don't know how much it matters in the long run. But that's what happens when Myanmar is a low priority in the country. So you will have to at least shifted up to a middling priority if you can. I mean, those small increments can make a difference. As a matter of fact, sorry for the wordy statement.
Host 57:26
No, thank you for that. And we'll go. So Igor had his hand up next that will go to him. But just before we do, I just want to encourage all panelists, we're having a stream of questions come through the chat, I think probably more than we can get through orally. So I just like to encourage the panelists when you're not speaking to take a look at them. And if any of the conversations or questions coming from the chat, spur reflection in your answer, please just pick it up yourself. Because we don't we, it's wonderful, we're getting so much engagement, but we don't have time to go through everything individually. So please, look yourself for what's relevant. And with that, let's hear from Igor.
Igor Blazevic 58:00
So I'll just make two comments, let's say one is when I was when I'm on a daily basis, let's say talking with friends in a Myanmar and going through their disappointments with international community, one of the things what I always repeat is that the future of the Myanmar will be decided domestically, let's say that 80% of the factors which are deciding about the future of the Myanmar, in the country, let's say the whatever international community, whatever outside players will do, let's say will influence 20 to 30% more so in that sense, let's say really priority of our struggle is is consolidate the political alliances in the country. Let's say the keep alive the resilience of the people. Part of that is diaspora as well and don't always expect too much from the international sport from all the obstacles what we are what we are talking about because when you expect too much that's the only thing what you get you get disappointment when you get disappointment you get this kind of the moral emotional downturn downturn which lets it take away energy from the from the your own struggle and or your own resilience. So this is kind of the one important thing. The second important thing what I see as a problem and this is something what we can change and what we can improve the part of our problem is what what was partly said that we don't have a clear voice let's say we are but part of that is we are we are we are so decentralizing but let's say we are so there are so many actors participating in a Myanmar struggle, and this is part of our strength. But at the same time, that's it that means that every every single moment, we are speaking 10 different messages we are we are running in a 10 different directions and instead of Canada having a clear message once it to the international players, we are creating the noise of the too many messages communicated by us. So what I think let's say what we need to do, we can change that. Let's say we We'll continue, let's say to basically all these different players doing their own messaging and their own campaigns and activities. But we need to practice how we, on a certain regular basis align ourselves into the common joint campaigns. That's it. Because when we pull together, all the diasporas, let's say the certain number of the advocacy groups, which have a lot of lot of experience, when we pull together the capacity of the of the local protest groups, to create a very, very strong messages on the ground with plastic with powerful pictures, that's when we bring the energy in that kind of the aligned communicating, we can be much more clear and much more more in a certain way effective in communicating. So this is one of the things that I think that we need to do it, let's say, to practice pulling together all different actors, which I at this moment, communicating on behalf of the Myanmar. And from time to time, I usually say once in a month and a half, we need to come together and have a one specific focus what we are communicating for two weeks period.
Host 1:01:11
Thank you for that. And I, I'd like to ask her to theory with a question next, based on what we've been hearing and some what's been coming out in the chat. I know this is something that that she's been interested in talked about before, there's a message on the chat that there's there's no Zelinsky in Myanmar, and that Aung San su chi, as Michael talked about, has left this real void. And there he is someone who is you've you've in your talk just now and sharing your perspective, talked about the values and the motivation of what generation Z wants to portray to the world and the vibe that the active the younger Myanmar activists are having. And yet what you're talking about is more of a general vibe or feeling of getting out there. What to say of like a charismatic figure, do you in someone from your own position? Who has been trying to get this message out? Is it enough to just have the messaging itself? Or is it important to start to identify or to build up or to locate someone who can embody these traits and to really bring them up so that they're more known on the media? So what are your thoughts about this?
Thiri 1:02:22
In terms of the crisis, in this situation, I think usually having a bigger always been helpful. Because people been there people don't want to know what's happening. They just want to know, okay, who is telling and they like to follow. But we have a we have a history that we have, we used to have one I saw the comment, we have Antonucci, which has been brave figure, but then, you know, she, she couldn't really meet you. There's always a danger of the charismatic leaders, and they can go so I think, in terms of the movement, I think we need, we need figures, we need faces. I think that's more like practical way to approach it. But maybe not just one, because saying, What if one fail, so we need more people? Yeah, we need the Lansky as like more. But by which I don't mean that people with the military uniform. So one thing I've been concerning lately is that we have new leaders we have new civilians, young leaders, which they believe in ministers and something and everyone when they go to the field, I noticed that on social media, they've been wearing the military uniform as a public relation which actually really concerned me because the whole idea of us fighting is to end the military or life dictatorship it's not it's beyond and the terminal beyond ending today so then we we need more people but the civilians leader are the should be ahead of the military leader. So people should listen to that people we should listen to them, not because they are wearing a military uniform, but because they are the civilians leader so because we just want to this is a chance for us to rebuild our society with the from the military, our dictator, military life dictatorship to to more stable, more, say that, like, democracy so so to answer your question short, like do we need it? I think strategically we need new leaders. We need to have leader not only from the public defender, people defense forces, but also from an environment leader, maybe also from the ps4 Because also another thing about your sport this every time when we talk about grammar, we often leave the DSP or population out because they're not Bama enough and something that's what people say, but this is the time for us to be all included and we can If we can have more than one leader, so I think we all need to work together. But again, we cannot just have the leader is we need to have a common narrative and common goal. So my, my analysis with the revolution itself at the moment is that we have a vision, which is very broad and very, very principle, very moral base. And they're very, very broad and vague, that is that cannot be achieved. That that is good to have the vision. But also we have tactics such as like, military response, and also the environment response. Those are tactics. So our revolution, I think we have a vision, we have a tactic, but I don't think we have a goal. And we haven't, because we don't have a goal, I don't think we have a strategy. So whoever the new leader or leaders or leaders is good to have, we should, we should definitely have it as a public relation and to engage with the people. But also before that, we need to go to the common understanding and agree upon, you know, episodes of goal and like the achievable goal. And maybe we also need to show the Bite Size assess to the public, it can be we I imagine they're more the the I imagined, you have more leaders, that will be coming from different backgrounds, different skill set and and then you know, we have we will have different opinion, we will have different approach, which is fine, we can debate, which is fine, but, but we as long as we have a common goal, so more like we need leader, but also we need a clear message of when we tell other people we cannot be vague, like we cannot approach where like, we don't know what we want to do we need to be clear about what we want to do. So I think, yes, we need more people. Maybe maybe better than the landscape? Can we not be better than the landscape? Can we not be better than Johnson City? Why Johnson City? Why do we have to be just like, can we not be better? If we can be better? Why can we not be better, but we need more than one person to be check and balance.
Zoe Wild 1:07:07
Thank you, Siri, you bring up so many important points. And actually, I was thinking of Arab Spring, you know, when you're talking of do we need a leader that has a specific leader? Do we need multiple leaders? Or can a generation be a leader? And I'd love to hear more about what you feel is the shared vision and how is that different than a goal? What is the goal that you see. And I also wanted to NAND our you spoke in the chat about the need for more valid documentation and data to get these audit threats brewing in Burma, that that can affect regionally and globally the response and a listening to theory, it sounds like you know, not only more valid documentation of the atrocities, but also of the positive movement. So if either of you would speak to that, that'd be wonderful.
Nandar Min Swe 1:08:04
May I? Yeah. So the chat answer I was replying to was Patty's point of view, you know, like she's raised a good valid point about speaking off or making it aware that under this military dictatorship, they are opening doors to Russian nuclear plants to be started in Burma, you know, they're trying to Russia is trying to turn Burma into North Korea, basically. And they are another stronger foothold in Asia. So that we need to get it out as a potential valid threat to regionally and globally. Because at this point, you know, everyone has accepted Russia as the common villain, right, like someone who will invade or be destroying anyone at their own well, at any point in time, so association with Russia alone should validate someone to be a bad person who you associate with make you who you are. So that has to be kept reminding to the Western Wall, the free wall that hey, you know, Russia is not only invading your logo, just spreading locally, trying to get hold of Europe, it's even trying to get a hold or footstone in Asia. So that will be one point. The other point is about the cybersecurity and the like human trafficking, slavery, the new era slavery type of thing that is happening, pretty much to be honest under China. So China has been playing toying with Burma for a while now. They had been getting a whole load of whatever they want from the border areas to begin with. Now, they're getting more if anything, and they're abusing all that. So that but the issue So we got only like anecdotal, there are snippets or like, you know, videos. But that's not like a documentation per se, to, to showcase or to make a case about this is actually happening and this will spread to your country, telling Laos, Cambodia, I mean, not that they don't know, they also are dealing with it anyways on a daily basis. But you know, if we let China run wild on us, let them run our lives, it's going to happen to your countries, your stability, your security is going to be affected. So we definitely need to have those type of data documentation again, you know, the validity of what we want to showcase has to come to be honest like to call it a solution, I don't know how to get them because you know, I can't get access as much as you guys get access to. But my point here is if we can make the Western world again, mainstream media or more effective people to go out and gather those data documentations obviously, you know, the wall listens to CNN, more than our Ira already, right, or our own media's even RFAs or VOA, right? So CNN carries Washington Post carries New York Times carries more weight, when it comes to those, you know, showing something happening, like opening a book or discovery like reading news to the wall. So that will be a good idea to have them started covering the downfalls or the being taken advantage of the situation, the instability of the situation. So unless you know you guys come out to help us, you Our next type of message had to be sent to the logo. Awesome.
Host 1:12:09
Thank you for that. We have a couple panelists with raised hands. I'll go to Philip next.
Philip Annawitt 1:12:13
Igor was first you do want to come first. Just go ahead.
Igor Blazevic 1:12:21
Go ahead. I can I can do it.
Philip Annawitt 1:12:23
Okay, mine is very quick. Just just addressing the two questions. The one that was asked by Patricia first. I think what Amanda has already answered most of it. I think it's a good storyline.
Host 1:12:36
I don't think it makes sense. Can you rephrase the question? Just I think you're reading off the,
Philip Annawitt 1:12:40
the question. Sorry. Yeah, the question was whether the full breakdown of anything remotely being state control in the border lands between Myanmar and Laos and the new trends of cybercrime. And scamming and slavery that has been beginning is beginning to be reported whether that is something that would concern the international community and would serve to focus more attention, I would say, is a great narrative that that can be can be used, as Nanda has said, to raise attention, because it's a it's a novelty thing, everybody who, why tell about this, just their eyes pop open? How is this even possible, but I don't think it will change it, I don't think it's very, it's going to be very influential. Because if you remember how many drugs have been going out of that region, for how long and how the export of drugs on the production export of drugs. And of course, we know it's linked to the junta directly, indirectly. has, has exploded and hasn't changed the stance of anybody except if you remember, in fact, Australia, there was a discovery by a senator that they were still engaging with the junta to stem the flow of drugs, which of course, the junta is also responsible for, for creating to a certain degree. So I think very often outside powers when they see a problem, they turn to whoever they may think will be easiest fix in the short run, and they don't look at the structural issues behind it. So I don't think I think it's an interesting thought. I think it should be raised more in the media. I don't think it will be the answer. I just want to quickly respond to what Paul said about the EU and the foreign or the UK Foreign Office not being happy with what I said about the US being the only one that's funding. I'm not talking about, you know, classical development. I'm not talking about humanitarian work. I'm not talking about support to civil society I'm talking about who supports the democratic actors meeting the energy the UCC, and the CPH. And isn't anybody else? And that's fact has been saying that forever. And it's not a question of money. It's just the fact. That's just to clarify, thanks.
Host 1:15:19
Great. And Igor, go ahead.
Igor Blazevic 1:15:24
Yeah, I want to follow up a little bit on the other things, but theory has was talking about that before. And that is about the really necessity to come up with the positive narratives that's unlocked with this kind of suffering victim, let's say, narrative. Because let's say when we are talking to the outside world about atrocities, there are so many atrocities happening all around the globe, so mad at places we simply don't catch attention. Talking about the threats, talking about Russia as a threat, yes, let's say that there is a strong argument, but it's not sufficient one letter. So we need to highlight that. But the main, the most important thing, what we need, we need a positive narrative coming from the country and saying, let's say that we have a unique the struggle, let's say, we will be in at the end, let's say and this is the kind of the positive Promised Land future, what we are, we are building and we need to have exciting, charismatic people as a messengers, communicating that to the to the outside outside world. So we need the military of the hope. We need to have a narrative of the of the beneath, let's say this is the only thing how we can attract the attention in this moment.
Zoe Wild 1:16:46
Thank you. Andy just asked, Is the post colonial history of Burma as a long running civil war, contributing to outsiders writing the revolution off as just another civil war? And if so, how can the movement in Burma differentiate itself from this fallacy? I think this really speaks to this need for a new narrative. And I'm curious if there are ideas in this group of what that new narrative might be, that could engage it, can there be a narrative that engages both the internal population and the diaspora and larger political figures, that's for anyone.
Michael Haack 1:17:26
I'll say something probably unsatisfactory, and then somebody can can jump in. But I think that like, to some degree, like we need different narratives, or different groups of folk. I mean, I think a lot when we're talking about the world, like we're sort of talking about the West, but obviously, Ozzy on is extremely important, as you guys are talking about. And as I'm sitting in Thailand, right now, my brain is a little bit more in that than it was when I was in Washington, although I'll be back to Washington soon. But I mean, I think thinking about like, okay, like, what are people in Indonesia? What do they care about? Like, what, like, there should be some energy people in Jakarta right now, like hanging out, like trying to make friends, you know, with and trying to figure out, like, how do you make friends there? And, I mean, in DC, we've been trying to do some success. I mean, we were given a little sandwiches at our event, which is definitely the way to make friends in DC. And, and, you know, so like that, I don't know exactly what it is in Jakarta. But like, I think that that, you know, you need some of that going on. But I think I don't know, let 1000 narratives bloom, you know, but but also, but be strategic about it. Right? Like, if you're going to the Baptist Convention, you know, talk about all the Baptists, you know, like it, you know, so anyway, yeah, that's, that's my initial thought maybe some people have some better ideas. So
Philip Annawitt 1:18:49
I thought Philip had his hand raised. No, I did not. I just but if you fail, if I have the floor, I just really want to want to agree with what what especially Igor has said before, the need for a narrative and the need for a group of people to communicate the narrative and the narrative doesn't need to be needs to be very complicated. I mean, I hate to do this, but I have to say, right now, the junta narrative is easier to understand and the narrative of the revolutionary forces, the junta five point plan, we all know isn't that much of a plan, but I can tell you what it is because it's five points. Deeper revolutionary forces haven't been able to come up with that kind of narrative yet. And you don't need not only the statement, but you need to you need people to articulate that consistently. And repeat it, repeat it, repeat it as boring as it feels for the person doing it. That's what it needs to get the attention from media. That's what it needs when you go into a meeting with a with a foreign government. before. And as Mike said, the people in Indonesia, there are these, there is a bit of a network around the Foreign Ministry, we know that they have representative offices. Also these structures, necessarily for research reasons, rely heavily on the Aspera. I've said it before, I think there should be investment in these are, again, volunteers, without huge budgets, but there should be investment in the capacity of these people, giving them more guidance being clear on messaging. And I think that's, that's one of the things where there can be improvement and quick wins on, you know, communicating what you want better.
Host 1:20:46
Thank you for that. I want to go to theory next. And theory, there's there's been some robust online chat that you've been engaged in that I'm wondering if you can bring the audio and introduce this from the start for people that are not reading the chat, what, what what is being talked about and how you've been responding to it. And then also following up with what Philip said, which really underscores the value and the importance of solidarity and easy messages, which at face value kind of contrasts with what you're saying in terms of diverse opinions, and a public forum where people are expressing themselves. So maybe you can also pick that apart?
Thiri 1:21:24
Yeah, sure. I feel like more into that typing. So about the different opinion. So we, I think we definitely need different opinions. But we also need to be aware of the urgency of the situation, like, we cannot be like, Oh, we want to go this way, we want to go that way. So think of it as a journey. So we have a vehicle to go there. But maybe when these leader their role, the people that I named some people because they happen to be on the, on the media on the platform. So I just name I'm not saying they are the only leaders that are more than that, but I'm just giving an example. So so the role of these leadership, that new leadership in something, it's just to, you know, guide us they will be we have among some leader, if we have a common goal of okay, we're gonna go to, let's say, Washington, DC, if the trip is like, well, somebody wants to go to Washington, DC, somebody wants to go to New York City. But then we need some leaders to tell us, okay, let's, we're gonna go to Washington DC at this point. And we're gonna go to New York City, another point, but so instead of, we're debating, and a lot of voices over where we want to go, then we wouldn't go anywhere. Instead, we should just one person, like those leader to be like, Okay, we're gonna go to Washington, DC, this time at this period, and then let people discuss about how we want to get to Washington, DC, whether we want to take the bus, whether we want to fly, whether we want to walk in something. So I think we should debate more on the house, because we have the urgency we cannot be. Not everything can be happening at the same time, there have to be the episode of trip and episode of the destiny, otherwise, we won't we won't get anywhere. So it's good, we should have a space for the debate. But also we should have a common goal of where we want to go at a certain point. It doesn't mean that it just because we go to Washington, DC at this point doesn't mean that we're not going to New York City, we are not going to New York City at this at this certain moment. So So these leadership, whoever the leadership would be, what I want what I expect as the follower, I don't want to be a leader, I really want to follow anyone who just wants to leave because so they just need to say okay, this is where we are going and then clear plan. And then if they asked how do you want to go, I will be involved in in that. But it's wasted a lot of time when we decide like okay, well, I want to go there, I want to go here. So we need to have a coordinated effort. So like whatever happening at the policy level, and now I'm working with a creative community, sometimes they don't really go together. So right now what we're trying to do is whatever happening on the policy level, the intellectual talks or whatever the leaders are saying, I'm trying to translate it into the creative messaging, talk to the creative people and then create a message into the broader public. So we have to we are working like like a chain like one after another because everyone play a role like these people that I need. They're my friends that but because I named them as leader not because they are my friends. I don't agree with them on many level and I sometimes don't even like them but but this is necessary we have because we always say Burmese culture. Like if you have two people, we split into three Let's get over, let's break that cycle. This is not something this is not something to be proud of, we should be more like brave enough to overcome the culture together with a revolution, things doesn't work we need to get rid of and we may not like people we may not. We have very different, we have really, you know, we have weird challenge to trust each other but, but it's more like working trust and working unity build on it, just to get somewhere. And then rather than we like them personally or not, we should put right people in the right place. A lot of oftentimes I think like one that's also relevant to commenting question that you say as a Gen Z, which are not agenda, I'm 10 years older than Gen Z. And but the thing is, we need to in my understanding of Myanmar is a many times good people. But just because we don't like each other, we don't really share the space, we don't really create expanded space for other people to come in. Because we don't like this person, I don't like this person she is, I don't like that. And so we that I just want to move beyond that, you know, maybe we don't like them, maybe we don't trust them. But maybe this person is the right person to be there. Even if this person is an enemy, we should create a space because let's not be the crap society where people pull down everyone, we just support each other, we amplify our voice we work together, we're going to call it out for the value that doesn't align with us, we also going to call in people, but at the same time, we're going to amplify it something to someone do a good job, I think we should amplify our efforts. So that that's overall, I don't know if I answer your question. I'm just saying whatever I want to say. Thank you.
Zoe Wild 1:26:51
Thank you, Siri. Nondairy so you have your hand up. And just right before that theory, is it possible that you could just say in one sentence, what you feel like the vision is before you said, the vision is clear?
Thiri 1:27:04
Well, vision is my personal session is that I want to go home, I want everyone to go home, including a soldier, including me online and all the time, because I want everybody to go home with live peace. All of you, like go home and just, you know, have fun time with a family secure, and safety and secure in a daily life in your home without needing to leave home having a choice to either go back home or not. So that's basically my my only vision is to go home. I think, you know,
Zoe Wild 1:27:43
I'm living peacefully. And the goal is how you do that? Is that what you're saying enough
Thiri 1:27:48
to be able to, to build that home, right? You know that home, but it's also like episode, but I am not going to talk about this here because it would be really long. But the point is that everyone just we shouldn't make like a goal that is with the episode like okay, this goal is to maybe like get out, get the get rid of the military from the political space. That's one goal. And then one strategy, and then middle part like, how do we envision a future? That's another goal and another episode? And so it can be coming all together? But but it should we should have a clear goal in every stage.
Zoe Wild 1:28:23
Thank you for clarifying that. Nandurbar.
Nandar Min Swe 1:28:26
Please join it. Yeah, I just want to agree with the RE you know, because you know, we were the Burmese bonds, we have this Burmese culture kind of imprinted in us. Right. So we know when we talk about Burmese nature, like how Burmese think, right? And how Burmese roll. So we have this tendency to have this a lot of keeping it to yourself, right? Like so when you believe in something when you have a value system. You just treasure it. Right. And you treasure it secretly. The issue with Burmese is like they're so secretive, like you know, and we were we were brought up to be secretive. It's a notch or two. So you you have a vision or you have a belief system, you have a value system and you just stick to it, no matter what you're doing either good thing or bad thing or in middle, right? Like are not dealing with anything. You stick to your value system and you don't share with anyone. So the issue of us, our Burmese people not able to work together. I mean, that's what I see in diaspora mainly is that there whenever they have different value systems, they can all work together, even if they share the same goal, even if they want to do the same work, right, but their value systems are different. So because of that value system, they really cannot work together anymore. It's becoming Like, you know, instead of fighting the common enemy, you just start bickering at each other. I guess every other person, every other nationality in the war might have that it's just the level of how high or how low. That is. We feel like right there, we feel like our Barbies, people are really high in that level. So it's like they like to bake around each other. They want to point fingers at each other. And they totally lost what their major goal is, the common goal is, so that we should be when we want to fight a system when we want to a brute and root a bet, brought up bad culture, we need to start from within, right, like, we need to start from us that that's how we should be always reminding ourselves to be successful in whatever we're doing, including this spring revolution. We need to tone down on our belief systems and value systems and always bring ourselves back to what I am doing it for, what is my goal here? Right? Like, yeah, and also, we were brought up and taught to be grateful to anything and everyone who had done even a little drop of something for us, right. So we have to stick to that culture, obviously. Because if we're not grateful for what had been done so far, like the EU assumption thing over and over and over again, for you know, more and more people that are connected with the junta en us for you know, coming up stepping up this bar, having NDA inclusion for two years in a row and the this final year, they even included bomber identity NDAA. Right. So whoever's afford it is as a collective effort that was put in to happening this, including you, Mike, you know, Mike and other cohort of people making it happen, we have to be grateful, we have to be grateful to the US Congress and Senate and the House for passing that. So with that grateful sensation, when we move forward, it's positive feedback, positive attitude that we can build our path. Even better, if we just go by with a disappointment and feeling whiny, right? Like, why are people not caring for us, that we're being ignored. If we move forward that way, it's harder, because you know, you are going with this bitterness, you're going, you're moving, but you're moving with the hardship in your, in your, in our soul, that's not helpful. So we really have to make sure we carry on the grateful and positive, you know, looking at counting the blessings type of thing. When we keep moving forward, plus, we need to get rid of our culture have that self righteousness, and my value is the only value. My way is the only way type of thing when we need to work together. And I totally agree with theory that we have to change our narratives that you know, we don't have Zelensky right now, definitely, we don't even have uncensor G anymore, right? Because she is not that icon in the eyes of the world anymore. So we need to have newer heroes. And I put the s in there as a plural, the newer heroes as a collective like, all Burmese people are heroes that aren't doing this. So but we just have to keep pushing the narrative. And we just have to have that Plan B's and plan C's always handy. That's how that's the that's the only way I could think of right now to keep more moving forward and staying afloat in the eyes of the ward. And to to get into closer to success of our revolution. Thank you.
Host 1:34:03
Thank you, Nana. I have one follow up question I'd like to ask you, and then Igor has his hand raised, and we'll go there next. And I also just want to put on the table. People in the chat have been asking, What about China? And how should we be? What should we be thinking about narrative in terms of China? So maybe that's the next topic. But now first things first. Now under the question I'd like to follow up with you is that you began your talk just now by by referencing how the internal dynamics of of how Burmese should talk and relate to each other. And then you moved on from there looking at the external dynamics of how people within the diaspora and Myanmar should look at the international community. And I wanted to comment on a couple things with that and ask your opinion. So one thing I'd like to comment on is, in our podcast conversation, you referenced how you feel that that Burmese have a culture and in the diaspora as well of wanting to come Keep your problems to yourself, you gave the very evocative example of you might have Burmese going to work with Americans or other Westerners with a smile. And then they come home and they cry and be and they're not showing their crying to their colleagues. So there's there's there could be more of an effort, especially in Western countries of being more extroverted and sharing rather than wanting to shelter the burden by oneself. So that's one thing I'd like to ask you about to comment on. But then the second is, you talk about this idea of gratitude to foreign people and organizations that are doing things, which is very nice. And one way to recognize where help has come. I also see that as a concern when it goes too far. And the example I'm thinking of is that after the coup happened, there was almost no there was no celebrities or influencers who from foreign countries who didn't who made any comment. The one of the only exceptions was Rihanna. Rihanna had a tweet that said, praying for Myanmar. And I mean, in Myanmar itself, people loved it. They were so happy to have the single tweet. Well, last week, Rihanna was performing at the Superbowl. And what did she wear in front of the widest television audience of the year? What did she wear but a blood Ruby from Burma? And so there was immediately this this concern about this righteous concern about how could she wear this but there was also I noticed in the online community, there was a lot of sympathy for four, still believing that she held Burma close to heart, even though she was wearing this blood diamond and so sorry, this blood gem and so I'm also wondering, in expressing this gratitude, you know, how do we how is this balanced with a realistic approach of what people are really doing and where their mindset is? So, anyway, that's a lot to throw at you. But to pick that apart, and then we'll go to Igor after this?
Nandar Min Swe 1:37:00
Well, again, you know, her wearing that Ruby could be a symbol of that she wants to say, show that she, Nick treasures us right? That maybe that's her intention. I mean, if you are not a pessimistic, hateful person, you can consider that way. She was she was putting Burma on her hand, right, like showing off to the whole of the United States or other parts of the world who might be watching the Super Bowl. But yet again, if you want to also consider it as a blood Ruby, right wishes again, who can confirm it was a blood Ruby, right? I mean, most of 90% of the rubies, rubies, yes, definitely. But yet again, it might have come through stringent officiating, you know, certification process, too, right. So we should not be again, like, you know, going microscope being dividing things when it comes to support. That's my point here. If someone supports you be grateful. Just take it. And leave it at that. Don't go beyond like, Okay, where is this coming from? Right? Like, how did she get it? Like it doesn't she know, this is built on the backs of the blood of the regular people. If we want to talk like that, if we pick all those women, Burmese women wearing jewelleries they know where this is coming from, and yet they still wear it. So you know, like the blood diamond from Africa to right, like so, you know, we almost all of us know almost all the diamonds coming from Africa, our blood diamonds, but yet we men who cannot resist, you wanna read this aware it? So I don't find value in Nick picking those little things. It's like when she wears a Burmese Ruby, we should be grateful. We should be proud about that. Period. That's it. Stop there. Right? Like don't go beyond. I mean, unless you know for a fact she got it as a gift from a junta leader or you know, a Honda. What do you call it the crony person, right? So something like that. And that's my, my point here is less focus on the positive things and move forward with those positive things that we won't hurt our own feelings. It's all about the perceptions. When you start precepting the perceiving things in negative ways, it hurts you, it hurts your energy, it hurts your ability to move forward in the positive direction. So I don't know if I answered your question. We were sticking to Rihanna, I think at this point.
Host 1:39:35
Sure. Well, with with limited time left, let's go to Igor that does end up.
Igor Blazevic 1:39:40
So I think that Myanmar is currently full of the extraordinary fascinating people who are well who are stories who are big stories, and particularly in a generation between 20 and 3030 or 35. Let's say we when we are talking about leaders and so on, we have a, you know, Myanmar is a leader in this moment in particular in that generation, so So in that sense, I really think let's say that we need to do two things. One is less to package a little bit, let's say all these extraordinary people who are now driving the different forms of the of the spring revolution, package them a little bit, let's get that stories into the English language and other languages and find the way how we communicate them on all as a flow of information, let's say because there is something in a Myanmar struggle which is compatible with the with the anti apartheid movement. It's a it's a winning, it's a hard story. But it's a beginning story in which Canada fascinating people are changing the country in a profound way through the through the extraordinary danger, in fact, and we can get the story, let's say the problem is a little bit let's say that in a Myanmar culture, let's say particularly when you are younger, you don't go in front as a yo, yo, you let other seniors to take the stage. And I think let's say that the Myanmar young generation should be just a little bit more character ready, let's say to take the stage which they deserve to have been everything would they have done in the last two years? Where we are talking about the vision then about what is this thing a couple of people have asked you that just to give my contribution. I think that we should say that future the Myanmar is a country where people will be safe, which they have not been for the 50 years later. So we are bringing the country where people that simply be saved, that nobody can hear us tortured and mystery to them. The Myanmar of the future will be the country where people will not be discriminated, but will be respected. And the third thing that Myanmar of the future will be country in which first 20 years, the natural wealth of that country will go to collect the past injustices. military has created 70 years of the suffering of the people, there are so many people who have been the victims. And we need to promise to the people of the country that the next 20 year, all oil money will go into reparation of the suffering or to recover the burned villages, to help the families who have gone through the lost lost family members to recover the lives of the people who have been in a tree to recover the lives of the people as it was who have gone through the ethnic cleansing. Let's say we need to use the wealth of the money for that. And that should be the promise we are giving to the people for in a struggle which they have now.
Zoe Wild 1:42:39
Any of our other guests would you like to add to that? Hello?
Philip Annawitt 1:42:43
Yeah, I agree with Igor. Those are those are good domestic messages. The International I think the messages to the international communities are quite simple. They have they have been said in statements, but they haven't been said clearly enough and repeated clearly enough and not always as clear who can speak for whom. And then there's individual organizations coming out with statements criticizing that leader, this leader and that's all not not always super helpful. But I think the messaging is clear. I've seen they all have them in them. In the chapter, the idea of Myanmar being a good good citizen of the world of being a country that will make sure it it police's its borders will make sure to crack down on the illicit economy that federalism is actually a model that everybody is committed to, including the Obama. That's an important point, I think, not only for me and my domestically but also internationally because people know what the dynamics have been in the country. That they're committed to democracy that they continue to have an nonaligned foreign policy, which will also important, Myanmar has always had that. And I think that was a success story. If you want one foreign policy of the success story of the NLD government, it was their relationship with China. And that relationship with China will be important for for Myanmar, going forward because you can't just put a country and take it off the map and put it somewhere else. And I think because the question came up on China that so far, relations with China this has been managed well we know China is more interested in the NLD than it is interested in the energy at this point in time that will only change if the energy stays around becomes more powerful than the Chinese will start dealing with them. And at this point in time it's just don't antagonize try to make contact and you know, engage the Chinese and that's not everybody may like it, but I think that's the It's just that's just what's what's required right now.
Host 1:45:04
And theory you have your hand up to.
Thiri 1:45:08
Yeah, I just want to wrap up like what I expect the international community to do like not the I have already shared the vision. So one is that do not downgrade our movement, our resistance, we have come this far that the fact that it's already two years and over two years, and they've been killing us every day torturing us and do every brutality you can think of they've been doing, but still we haven't really surrendered yet. So we the fact that we are still fighting is that we we have come so far to be because they cannot be given they we cannot be governed they cannot admit that you cannot really govern us. So any information however you portray about us do not lose hope on us like we are fighting we are trying to, we have come this far, so. So look at what we have all the people in the CGM and people asking me, so I would appreciate it, people just say, oh, you know, maybe at the end of the day, military is going to win. That is not helpful. No, they are not winning, we have a potential to win. We're not, we're not winning yet. But we have, we are going to win. And we have a chance to win without losing. So that's one thing narrative with talking about ourselves in our own work, and to support the resilient project, and resilience, and people do people can't project any work. So people do people process all the work means that maybe with the people of the other country, or people within a country, more like Unity project or the resilient project that support that, and either financially, or mentally or shade on your social media or talk to your friends and family. So that's what you can do, and also invest in the new generation. Because we are already a lot of which traumatized and then it's really difficult for us to get for, you know, for us to get out of the things that get to think outside of the box. So invest in a new generation, because if you invest now, in 10 years, 20 years, they will be they will be in place for one country rebuild it, and support the mental health program. It's much needed a lot of us having gone through the mental health crisis. And, and the the that mental health crisis, mental health support for the back for the people, different poses, and for the protester, and also for the people crossing the border in at the border. And so that that day, and also the refugees or the immigrants that are in your country, we want to live with dignity, just because we are we became a refugee just because we became an immigrant. We shouldn't downgrade or we shouldn't give up our life. We don't want to work in a gas station. We don't want to work in the neck don't know anything. We are people with skill set. So let us live with dignity. Let us go home with dignity. So that's like basic things that you I want, I really expect you to do the chain stopping you. And thank you very much for coming today. Because I know you know, the fact that you're already here means that you cares about us. I really appreciate it. Please keep on supporting us and do not say that we don't want to be safe. Just the border. This is our fight. We're gonna fight and just support us.
Host 1:48:36
Thank you for that theory and Igor, you also had your hand up.
Igor Blazevic 1:48:41
I agree. With every single word word theory theory said let's say it's one thing when when we when for example, I'm talking with anybody from the International Canada player, players what I'm saying I'm usually saying let's say that Myanmar junta is breaking the country into the five to seven Canada PCs and Myanmar junta will never ever be able and say to reconsolidate the power and control of the country. So as long as the international community is tolerating and thinking about the junta as a part of the solution, then the only thing what they are doing is they're giving the time for the for the real estate collapse, let's say because the junta is the one who is the creative estate collapse. If the international community will invest into the N ug and all the other political and social forces, which are sending now behind the social the spring revolution, we have a chance to bring the peace, peace in the country. We have a chance, let's say country country together that's said to be the stable, prosperous, prosperous, peaceful, peaceful places. So this is the kind of the narrative what I'm sharing when I'm speaking with the with the end Medina international politics.
Zoe Wild 1:50:03
Thank you, we are about at time to end this conversation. So I just want to see if there are any last urgent questions that people feel to share before we close. And also to mention again that insight Myanmar and one like global have been running fundraisers for humanitarian efforts in Burma, and in Myanmar. And if you would like to donate to that you can do so at insight myanmar.org forward slash donations, you can also do that at one light global.org forward slash donate, just be sure to put a note in that it is for Myanmar. And that link will be in the chat.
Host 1:50:47
And I also want to add from my side that all of these five panelists have appeared on insight Myanmar podcast as guests, some have appeared multiple times. And so if you're curious to hear any of the respective perspectives of these guests, you can go in here, they're full long form interviews, and encourage you to also check out any of our other episodes on the topic. And this panel will also become a podcast. So this will eventually get into audio form. But with that, I also wanted to follow up with, with what Zoja said, if there are any final questions, or if any of the panelists would like to make any closing statements before we end here. And I should also mention that we will be having ongoing panels. And so this is our third, we our fourth one we already have already scheduled the date is not set yet it will be on the subject of engaged Buddhism, and we will be having some Buddhist leaders both within and outside the country. On that one, we'll inform you as time gets closer. But before we close this one, any any final comments or questions people would like to say?
Nandar Min Swe 1:51:56
Now, yeah, yeah, I'd like to say, closing statement. I totally agree. Second, what they just said, I mentioned, we will keep our fight, we will keep on doing what we're supposed to be doing. Because it's our it's our duty, our borne inborn duty and responsibility, but we cannot do it, our selves will not that we cannot, it will take longer, if we had to do it all on our own. So we will definitely appreciate you know, whoever supporting us in any means that ways. It's, it means a lot. When you push with more hands, the distance gets further. So we definitely are appreciative of anyone, including you guys, you know, Igor, Phillip, Mike, you know, you guys are, you guys can leave Burma out of your mind. But you don't you put your heart into it. That is that is beyond that. Our appreciation is like, you know, you guys are supporting us out of getting out of your way. So we would wish and hope that other non Burmese international people with ability and strength, be helpful, supporting us, pushing us forward so that we can finish this sooner, the sooner the better, the suffering will be less for the people on the ground. So we are appreciative of everyone, we are going to keep working inside out. And there will be more.
Zoe Wild 1:53:37
Thank you. Thank you, and to follow that each of you is or is struggling fighting for Burma in your own way. And if there are ways that people can get involved in your work, we'd love to hear that. So whether that's through policy, you just pass the Myanmar act, but is there another the Burma act? Is there another way that people can get involved is there you know, nondairy are doing it sounds like public events? And theory. Also, you've talked about collaborative discussions. How can people listening to this support each of you, personally, in your work?
Host 1:54:20
I saw Igor, you had your hand? Oh, my mic. Go ahead, Mike.
Michael Haack 1:54:24
And then we're tiny thing. So this, this is like not the Wehrmacht is passing out it you need to fund it. And so like watching Appropriations is important, especially if you're in the US and simply you could call your member of Congress and tell them to, to appropriate the amount that the Wehrmacht asked for but can join various mailing lists to find out more detail Yeah, so So that's that and and I would just say like, like a closing is like narratives very important, but I think thinking about interest and how that actually drives things. cuz I think is really important. I mean, at the end of the day it was Baptists who brought the Wehrmacht across the finish line. At the end of the day Republicans care about Baptists because Baptists elect Republicans and their job is to get elected. Right. So I think that that's just like something to something to keep in mind when you're approaching people, like narrative matters. But like crass self interest is also very important in this world. So and there's a lot of room for that, too. So anyway, that's my last use.
Zoe Wild 1:55:30
And please do share any links, either if, you know, we've had them off with that in the chat or send them to Joe or I so that we can send them in follow up emails where people can write to their Congress, people in their representatives, or donate?
Host 1:55:42
Thank you. Thank you. And yeah, and I think that's also a great reminder, from Mike, that part of the narrative is knowing who you're speaking to, it's knowing who your audience is. And I, I talked about this all the time, where I'm coming from when I end up giving presentations, when I go to give presentations on Myanmar to a local meditation group, I'm not talking about the power of hip hop, you know, and when I'm going to talk with when I'm going to an art collective, or talk about people who care about art, I'm not talking about the Burma act, no offense, Mike. But so so just knowing who your audience is, can be very powerful and knowing being able to navigate how to bring them into the story. Igor, you wanted to share something,
Igor Blazevic 1:56:26
I just want to tell one story, let's say there is a beautiful scene in one of the Tarkowski is filled, when the old man is going together with a small man, and they are carrying the dry branch. Let's say that in one moment, the old man put the dry branch in the in the earth, and say to the small boy or small man, bring everyday water and just gonna put the water here and do it just everyday. Let's say this brand will become the full of the flowers. And I think let's say we are now in a Myanmar in that story. Let's say every single of us should bring few drops of the water every single day or once in a week, let's say and we will see the miracle happening, let's say the something would look look so terrifying story will become a beautiful story. Let's say we can be doing something what anti apartheid movement was also that most movement was we can be the big winning story, let's see, which can bring the really kind of flowers in a victory of the spring revolution, which is also my call is let's just do it. Just keep on doing it. Every single day, a miracle will happen.
Zoe Wild 1:57:39
Anyone else how we can support you? Thank you for that beautiful image you are. I'm wondering if after this conversation, I'm seeing so many comments, thanking the speakers, the panelists, hosts, sponsors, attendees you know, we've heard these conversations are really rare. And we really appreciate you all taking your time to be here. And I'm wondering if after this conversation, are you feeling like are your shoulders down? Are you feeling like, oh, it's still just as struggle? Or has some weight been lifted does are we feeling like there's a possibility or a little crack in the door show must go on. Well, thank you everyone so much for your time and sharing today we will be sharing this recording and any links that you would like us to share we'll share with people I also know that insight Myanmar is going to DC next week, and then to New York's where I will meet them. So we can you know we're continually looking and open to new ideas. And anyway to continue to share this message further and make an impact on a humanitarian and political level for Myanmar. And with Myanmar.
Host 1:59:00
And, and we again, we encourage people to check out our website insight Myanmar also better Burma, the the nonprofit that sponsors that mission, if if there was a voice you would like to be heard on an upcoming panel or podcast yours or another's that's involved. We're trying to bring out these diverse perspectives as much as possible to learn from each other and to as has been talked about in this conversation. Democracy is not about liking everyone, it's about respecting the different opinions and being able to come to the table. And that's what we're trying to do. And so if there is someone else you would suggest bringing to the table please get in touch with us through email and and we would like to echo what theory said just showing up for those people that that simply attended this two hour talk for those people listening months from now on the podcast. So this this will become or YouTube. We appreciate that as well. This this is a big part of it. I do see a question there does insight Myanmar have an NGO status? The the nonprofit is better Burma. And yes better Burma is a 501 C three is so we just said insight Myanmar as part of the better Burma mission. And I I'm not I'm talking so I can't right now. But if someone could write the address of that, or Burma insight Myanmar in there for a website to be able to check out all of our humanitarian as well as media work, that would be great. And, and this is this has just been so exciting this has this, this has been so lively and robust. And I think I could speak for all of us when I say that this conversation has both in chat form and oral form has moved in so many diverse directions that we've barely been able to cover everything that's come up, but I think this is just a testament to how much people care about this. And as Zoe said, I hope that that some kind of burden has been off the shoulders of some of the panelists and the guests.
Zoe Wild 2:00:57
Thank you, everyone, thank you.
Host 2:01:16
For whatever reason, even as the conflict and Myanmar continues to worsen, it somehow continues to be shut out of the Western media news cycle. And even when the foreign media does report on the conflict, it's often presented as a reductionist, simplistic caricature that inhibits a more thorough understanding of the situation. In contrast, our podcast platform endeavors to portray a much more authentic, detailed and dynamic reality of the country and its people, one that nurtures deeper understanding and nuanced appreciation. Not only do we ensure that a broad cross section of ideas and perspectives from Burmese guests regularly appear on our platform, but we also try to bring in foreign experts, scholars and allies who can share from their experience as well. But we can't continue to produce this consistency, and the level of quality we aim for without your help. 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 a form currency transfer method. Your donation will go on to support a wide range of humanitarian mediations in those local communities. Donations are directed to such causes as the Civil Disobedience movement, seeing 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 your project would like to support, perhaps even something you've heard about in this very episode. All of this humanitarian work is carried out by a nonprofit mission that or any donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fund. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website better burma.com and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause in both websites accept credit cards. You can also give via PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we can take donations through Patreon Venmo, GoFundMe and Kashia. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either website for specific links to these respective accounts or email us at info@betterburma.org, that's betterburma. One word, spelled B E T T E R B U R M A.org. If you'd like to give it another way, please contact us. We also invite you to check out our range of handicrafts that are sourced from vulnerable artists and communities across Myanmar. Available at alokacrafts.com. Any purchase will not only support these artists and communities, but also our nonprofits wider mission. That's a local 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.