Transcript: Episode #210: Echoes of Genocide
Below is the complete transcript for this podcast episode. This transcript was generated using an AI transcription service and has not been reviewed by a human editor. As a result, certain words in the text may not accurately reflect the speaker's actual words. This is especially noticeable when speakers have strong accents, as AI transcription may introduce more errors in interpreting and transcribing their speech. Therefore, it is advisable not to reference this transcript in any article or document without cross-referencing the timestamp to ensure the accuracy of the guest's precise words.
Host 0:21
We all know how serious and dreadful the current situation in Myanmar is. For those of us outside the country, it can be difficult to know how to help. Of course there are significant ongoing needs across all segments of Burmese society. For those who are able to get financially any donations given to our nonprofit mission better Burma will immediately be put towards helping those being impacted by the coup. Just go to insight myanmar.org/donation to contribute today, or stay tuned to the end of the episode to hear more options. Thank you for your consideration. And now let's get into the interview that follows.
1:31
A feeling in my day that really not a good day Yeah.
Host 2:14
On this episode of insight Myanmar podcast, I'm joined by Andrea Gittleman. She is currently the policy director for the Simon Scott Center for the Prevention. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, we're going to talk about the museum itself, which has had an ongoing Rohingya exhibit on their grounds as well as her background as well, which as we'll find coincides with Myanmar as well. So Andrea, thanks for making the time to chat with us.
Andrea Gittleman 2:45
Thank you, thanks for inviting me. Right. So
Host 2:49
there's a couple of parallel tracks we have for this conversation. And they do converge. One track is your life story and how your personal involvement has intersected with various parts of Myanmar. And the second is the organization you now work for the Holocaust Museum and the work that they've done. And I suppose we should start first with your story because that predates at least in the conversation, we'll have that predates you're joining the Holocaust Museum, and then we'll get into what they've done concerning Myanmar. So getting into your story, I understand that perhaps your first involvement with Myanmar was when you were in May slot, a part of the Burma lawyers council. So can you tell us about your experiences in May saw your involvement with Myanmar issues and how your life started to become involved with the country and culture?
Andrea Gittleman 3:44
Sure, sure. Happy to. And thank you again, for inviting me. I'm happy to share this. So I started working with the Burma Legos Council based in Mesa, Thailand at the time. I started working with them when I was in law school, and then shortly after law school, so about 15 years ago, I was working with a team of lawyers who were doing really incredible things. Some, some parts of the organization were focused on training, migrant workers from Burma, who were working in Thailand, and making sure that they were aware of their rights, their label their labor rights, and could address any issues that they might have had working in Thailand. They were also working on projects that document mass atrocities, specifically war crimes and crimes against civilians, in current state and in other parts of Burma. And this was done, you know, on a shoestring budget, and with really dedicated people who are very good at what they did, but still had creative methods of getting information from hard to reach places within the country, getting that out, documenting the crimes, keeping databases of what was happening and then sharing that information with the public. So my role included working alongside the people who were documenting those crimes. And helping with translating what was happening to the international community. And back in 2009 2010, there was an effort at the time, as I'm sure you know, as your listeners know, to advance justice and accountability efforts for civilians who had been subjected to mass atrocities in Burma, there was an effort to galvanize international momentum, to establish a commission of inquiry, having a formal investigative body, look at what crimes had been committed. And so the information that Muller's council was collecting was part of this broader effort to have this this international demand for accountability really reflecting what a lot of the community based organizations had been doing for so long. So I would help with that international advocacy effort, which really had been been led for for so long by people with deep expertise, on documentation, on on legal issues, and on human rights from Burma.
Host 6:00
And as this was really one of your first involvements with Burma, understanding the people, the history, the tragedy, the ongoing tragedy and crisis that was going on, and you were up close and personal in May saw it and not looking at it from afar. What stood out during this issue, what was really prominent and marked your learnings, and that you still remember from your time and digging in for the first time, right?
Andrea Gittleman 6:24
Well, it was formative for me, of course, I was a young lawyer, very interested in international human rights. I'm not from Burma, I'm not from Southeast Asia, I was learning a lot every day. And it was really, you know, energizing and inspiring for me to be surrounded by so many people who had dedicated their lives to bringing up bringing about a brighter future for for their people. So I was learning a lot, I was also able to interact with people from a number of communities within Burma. And so as someone who was first starting to unravel, you know, what, what is what is happening, and as an outsider, there was limits to I think what you can can ever understand about a country that is that is not your own. But it was learning so much from people who were all from very different backgrounds, who all had this common thread of, you know, having suffered violence, having suffered persecution, often on the basis of, of ethnicity, or religion, you know, on the basis of their, their identity, and people who had experienced conflict. And none of this was was new to them. And people were telling me stories of, of conflicts that had been going on for decades. And so even though I was working with people from a number of different communities, there were these common threads among a lot of their experiences. And that's something that that carries forward today. And maybe because I was in May sought or maybe another product of the times, but I was not working alongside many Rohingya organizations, again, for geographic and probably other reasons, as well. But in some of the coalition's that were forming then, I mean, there wasn't a lot of discussion about violence against or persecution of Rohingya. And that's something that became more and more apparent, as I as I learned more about the democracy movement, and I learned more about human rights issues in the country.
Host 8:09
Yeah, and that's definitely something we want to get into more in the conversation concerning what your museum and your department and role has done there. Staying with your time in May sought, what also strikes me is that you reference how you would studied this, you'd studied human rights and documentation of atrocities, and, and such from a legal sense in a formal setting in a school setting, academic setting in America, and then in May saw your plunged into the ground reality of this unfolding before you so in what ways was there did you find a divergence or something that might have surprised you from how you were studying this as a field? And then when you came to be involved and immersed in real situation unfolding before you?
Andrea Gittleman 8:53
Sure, and it's a very good question, I think something that perhaps is absent from, you know, the the ways in which we learn about human rights efforts are we learn about the legal regimes, we learn about norms, but I feel like it's it's so often divorced from the experiences of people who are doing the frontline work of tracking these crimes, and often, sadly, suffering from them. And yet, there seems to be quite a big kind of divergence, but there seems to be quite a break between the conversations had in academic settings about what should be and then conversations had with civil society groups about what is actually happening, you know, what is ideal and what is possible regarding legal avenues to accountability, for example, and then what is the political reality in which we're operating? How can we actually move forward? What what does it mean to uphold these norms? What does it mean when the the groups who probably wouldn't be available to participate in you know, the their own source of justice? What if they're not resourced? What if they're not You know, given the proper platforms to be able to, to advance that work on their own. So it was a bit different, again, as a young lawyer and someone just you know, emerging from an academic space and working with local civil society for the first time, there are a lot of a lot of differences. And I think there's a lot of frustration from people who are living with the practical realities of unenforced norms of waning international political attention, have some, you know, diplomatic or financial support, but you know, support that's really inconsistent for civil society groups that really need support for the long term in order to make justice a reality.
Host 10:40
And what also strikes me in what you're saying, you reference the rule of law and understanding of law. And I think this is something that has come into focus much more in the past decade or two of just the we've covered it with a couple of our interviews, what comes to mind is recent books by Christina Simeon and Elliot press, Freeman, we've had both of those authors on and discussing the Western understanding of rule of law, and then the way that it's been understood or mismanaged or manipulated by regime authorities, going back to colonial times and how they understood rule of law that goes directly into what you were doing as a lawyer and someone studying how law is understood and applied, of course, coming from our sense in America, but then the way that it's been manifested in Myanmar over the years and in the transition period, but certainly with when the military has held power very firmly how they've understood and applied their understanding of rule of law and how that's then percolated into normal civilians and citizenry of how that's then come to understand at the ground level?
Andrea Gittleman 11:58
Well, it's it's very interesting, I think it certainly would depend who you talk to him, and I've worked with, with lawyers who were, I think, had a strong foundation of understanding the rule of law, but also understanding the international human rights regimes and who were intent on, on teaching the next generation teaching young activists from Burma about those, the legal norms about the history and about kind of how to practically apply some of that knowledge to their their own work. But that's, that's not always the case. And as, as in any situation, of course, those in charge will manipulate these these kinds of, of definitions and ideas for their own benefit. But there are efforts from some very smart, very dedicated people, many of those who I know who are having to be lawyers to make sure that there is this information being passed down about what does it actually mean to have an inclusive society that follows the rule of law? And it's difficult, I think, to have those conversations, especially now, when sometimes the windows to to pursue a vision like that might seem so so far off.
Host 13:07
Certainly, yeah. And now, with the current time of just trying to resist the regime, the understanding of rule of law in some post coup reality takes on a different form. The other thing that strikes me from what you said is, you were describing being in Mesa in 2007. And one of the things that you were doing there was looking at the documentation of atrocities that were ongoing. And I just want to underscore more for our listener base more for those that might not be so attuned to recent Myanmar history. This is 2007. This is this is over 15 years ago, that you're involved in how atrocities are being documented. This didn't start in 2007. This is something that was ongoing far before that, and 1988, it kind of came to the world's attention of what was happening with the oppression there. It did not start in 1988. There were atrocities long before that. And so I just want to underscore the tragic history of how there has been continual awareness and efforts to be able to bring attention and formally document the atrocities that are taking place. This is something that is happening only more egregiously. Now you talk to any Brahma experts out there, you'll hear people say, this is the worst it's ever been. And so I just really want to underscore this point for those that are not so attuned to this, that these things that we're talking about. Nothing is new, it's been going on for years for decades, the same kinds of things, the same kinds of tactics, the same kinds of efforts. And there's just as we're moving, as we've talked about, before this conversation, the 35th anniversary of the 1988 democracy movement, it's there's just this sense of tragedy and frustration even though there you can point to incremental progress and the long hard road towards a better future but balance that with really this pain and frustration of we're talking about the same thing not year after year, not even decade after decade. But in Myanmar's case generation after generation, we're having the same conversations about the same things happening with different technology and maybe slightly different geopolitics taking place as well.
Andrea Gittleman 15:17
Right. Right. Exactly. It's, it's really harrowing, and extremely well terrifying. To see the current context and to know that right as exactly as you say, this has been happening for generations, the tactics perhaps have changed a little bit from the perpetrators, the the victim groups and your abilities to respond or to be resilient, that that has changed in different ways to but the through line, you know, from independence to today is that, you know, there there hasn't been peace, and that communities in Burma, civilians across the country have been threatened, have been killed, have been experiencing crimes that that, you know, would would shock the conscience. And the fact that it has been going on for so long and leave by the same kind of groups of perpetrators is, is really alarming. And you're right, what we see now, I just think is, is especially devastating. It's not new, but it's certainly worse than in terms of you know, that the scale, and the ability of perpetrators to really amplify harm against against its victims.
Host 16:18
Yeah, that's right. And we're two and a half years in, and we're just seeing more and more egregious violations that are, you know, and I think international media has a hard time picking up on exactly the angle and how to how to report on it. It's, for one thing, it's extremely complex, it's, they usually go for a more reductionist view of black and white tropes. But also, it's when you're just having one terrible human rights violation after another village is wiped out airstrikes or atrocities or whatever else. It's against peoples and ethnic groups and places that people have never heard of. It's, it's hard to really bring the reality of that, aside from headlines of just some other village wiped out that no one's ever heard of before.
Andrea Gittleman 17:09
I think there are moments when information about the crimes in Burma today can function in international community's attention, and we are seeing international news coverage, but it's, it's not sustained. And it often, you know, it sometimes can't be and if people get, you know, they they're focusing on horrific things all over the world. But I think for people from Burma, for for communities who are under threat, and for the activists who are continuing to document what's happening, that it's so frustrating to then only have these brief windows where where you can can reach an audience because for people in Burma, there aren't only specific windows on which they might be threatened. You know, this is something that has been continuous. And so what you're mentioning earlier about, you know, having with the international media kind of having a reductionist view of things. I do think that's the case. Sometimes that's just, you know, that's that's, that's how they they have to report on what's happening in the world. But I do think it was a great problem, especially in the the brighter moments we had a few years ago, when there were very simple explanations that were reaching outsiders. I think people from Burma, of course, knew much more about what was happening. But outsiders were hearing no military regime since then, you know, horrific crimes in the past, was stepping back. And we had this democratic transition. And there was so much hope and optimism, and every now and then there would be stories about anti Muslim violence, anti Rohingya violence. But in general, as you say, there was this kind of simplistic understanding of what was happening. And speaking with people, including people here in Washington, people who cover foreign affairs, there was a sense of the problems are behind us. Things are on the right track. Democracy will be helpful for everyone. But at the same time, we at the home fast Museum, and what are our assignments got Center for the Prevention of genocide, we're seeing, we're really serious, early warning signs of genocide, even during this otherwise brighter time period. And it's often difficult, I think, for us to take a close look at what might be frightening or what might be really disappointing. It's easier for us to look at, at reasons to be hopeful. But I think we do a disservice to communities at risk if we don't give no close attention to some of those warning signs. But you're right, what we saw with the International conversations in the time of transition from you know, even back in 2011, into through 2017. And even up until the coup two and a half years ago, I think what we're seeing is really simple stories that kind of erase the experiences of communities who were at most at risk of mass atrocities, including genocide.
Host 20:01
That's right. And I'm glad that you're bringing your current position into it and the Holocaust Museum that goes next into our discussion of looking at what they as an institution have done. And you're also correct in noting that and pointing out that as the transition period was happening, we had this really feel good story. It also coincided with the Asian pivot that the Obama administration was making after and just feeling a new blood from the US side after the Bush years, and Myanmar just seem to fit right into that narrative. And, and the transition period definitely had some positive features to it. But, you know, the Holocaust Museum funded this report by Graham wood, I believe it was in 2014. This was an article in 2014 that was predicting, or at least cautioning the risk of genocide among the Rohingya, the headline of this article really struck me. It's the headline was a countryside of concentration camps. The reason why this headlines struck me so much and as I was researching for this interview, is that this is an article commissioned by the Holocaust Museum. And so for an article commissioned by the Holocaust Museum to use the word concentration camps, in an article in 2014. This is not a light thing that would just be thrown around. This is a very intentional use of a very charged word.
Andrea Gittleman 21:30
When the Holocaust museum was established back in 1993, there was a Committee on Conscience, which was dedicated to looking at genocide prevention efforts today. And it was really it was baked into the founding of the museum. And then over time from the 70s 80s 90s, it's certainly today that effort has grown. So now there's there a staff resources, there's an entire team, of which I'm a part that focuses on genocide prevention, we try to make sure that the US government and others have information so that they're responding to early warning risks of genocide and other mass atrocities, that they can have the ability, the tools, knowledge, and political will to stop them, and to promote justice for victims and survivors after the fact. And the museum started working in Burma in in 2013. So certainly before this article that you mentioned, and so the author wrote that we commissioned a book, he wrote that independently, but we also at the museum had been doing our own work. So in 2013, I believe that was the first time that the museum had a public event. And also a public statement in the museum's voice about concerns about the risk of genocide in Burma, specifically, looking at the Rohingya community, of of many other communities across Burma had been experiencing mass atrocities and, and ongoing risks of mass atrocities, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. So in 2013, the museum had a program called our walls bear witness working with the photographer, Greg Constantine, to show images of Rohingya, and really bring some of that information about what was happening in this moment of, you know, again, very initial very, you know, split slow beginning to a democratic transition, the what the experiences of the Rohingya community was then, and then in 2014, that article that you mentioned, I was looking at it. And you know, this was a time of, as you said, great optimism and a time when the Obama administration, I think, really, as you mentioned, with the pivot to Asia, was looking for this the success story. And for the reasons you mentioned, it seemed like Burma, Myanmar had this as a potential, no country emerging from, from military dictatorships and transitioning to a democracy, these changes, were going to help a lot of people. And so I think there was good reason for optimism and good reason for hope. In this article, it reminded me it has a quote from President Obama when he spoke in in Yangon during his his visit his famous visit. And he said, quote, I stand here with confidence that something is happening in this country that cannot be reversed. And, of course, he was talking about the the initial moves towards democracy that were going to help so many people of Burma looking back now, it's so devastating to say those words, because we know that there was something else happening, that that was not reversed. Of course, it could have been it could have been prevented. But that those those words, I think, take on a different meaning when we when we look back now. And then in 2015, the museum, the Simon Scott Center for the Prevention of genocide, issued a report about early warning signs of genocide, specifically against the Rohingya. And, you know, that's where we listed some very serious concerns about what was happening and the framing of that report. And also the of that moment was that there were there was this sense of what Rohingya activist told us a sense of euphoria, this euphoria of change in Burma, this is when it's not too cheap. was about to informally to kind of take take the helm, approaching the elections in 2015. And there was so much optimism which is was well deserved on many fronts. But everyone we talked to said, You're forgetting what's happening to us. You're forgetting what's happening beyond Yangon, you forgetting what's happening in the periphery where conflict is still raging, and forgetting about this no entrenched persecution against the Rohingya community, on the basis of their identity. What kind of democratic transition will be successful, if you know built upon those that the history of the legacy of violence and persecution, and so that report that the museum issued in 2015, we then followed up again in 2017, right as the mass violence was beginning in 2016, and 2017 against Rohingya civilians in Rakhine State. And since then, we've only, you know, hardened our focus and deepened our resolve to work alongside our partners Rohingya and, and otherwise from from Burma, to make sure that, you know, we're supporting the documentation work to get information out, but what is happening to make sure that US policymakers and others have the the information, the tools, the support to to put forward responses that could stem the violence, and then to support civil society, who are really doing incredible work to to lead the charge for justice. So that's been the trajectory of the museum's work on Burma. But really, it started, it started back then it started back in 2013 2014 2015. During a time when most people were not, we're not at least most people in the US or in the West, we're not talking about the potential for genocide in Burma.
Host 26:51
That's right, yeah. And had recently had a discussion with former US ambassador to Myanmar, Scott Marcial. And he, he echoed what he wrote in his recent book, imperfect partners, where from a diplomatic point of view, the difficulty of trying to determine a way forward where a regime which has been so rotten and despotic in the past, is starting to make clear progress in certain areas, while other areas, it's not only not making progress, things are actually getting worse and more concerning. And I think this is what makes talking about the transition period somewhat difficult, because I think there there are those who call the transition period, something of a fraud, and a smokescreen, and a land grab, and all these atrocities are still going on. And there are those who point to the real achievements and saying that there's no way that there would have been the kind of resistance we're seeing now unless people had those opportunities. And somehow, I think both are true during that period, that there there certainly were opportunities and progress open for some communities. That was very real. And yet there were, there were also things happening in other parts of the country, to other communities and with former military leaders who still had some power and corruption, that were doing really bad things. And so it was this very complicated reality during that time of trying to understand exactly what was going on, and perhaps the coexistence of two contradictory realities that were happening simultaneously and that are continuing to play out simultaneously today post coup.
Andrea Gittleman 28:21
Yeah, I think you've said that really profoundly. And I think we would probably be doing a disservice to multiple people to kind of to say that the transition was this, you know, a smokescreen. And I also think, you know, playing it as it as a natural good for all. It's also incomplete. And you're right. The transition helped many people, there were new openness, new advances, job opportunities, opportunities for connection and learning that were not available before. And that is incredibly significant. And when I was in Rakhine State back in 2014 2015, talking with people there, they said, you know, this is this is great, but when, when will it reach us? Or when will when will know that the violence against us be taken more seriously? And, you know, I just talked with with men and with women, and interestingly, a lot of the women said, you know, things have been really bad for so long. And yes, we're hopeful for the future, but there really needs to be some serious change because life for us is it's, you know, it's not improving the way that you would expect, you know, things start to improve given that the rapid pace of change elsewhere in the country. And it's, it's really difficult to I'm very sensitive to you know, I think it's very difficult for people in the diplomatic community who do want to do what they can to encourage that actors to, to step back. And that is, the most important thing is for, you know, perpetrators of mass atrocities to to cease what what they're doing, but then what what gets left behind and if the structures of inequality of this germination are there. And there isn't as part of that democratic movement, a concerted effort by many to kind of dismantle some of those institutions or some of those those legacies, then what kind of future is being built? And those are questions that I think are important to ask questions that I think we're being asked by civil society within Burma, but it probably not as much by people kind of leading the charge politically. And I think that that probably could have been, it was something that was certainly seen by Rohingya who we were speaking to, that they felt left out of that transition and left out of the political discussion.
Host 30:39
And I want to get specifically into the Rohingya crisis. And I want to also quote, another excerpt from this conversation I had with Scott Marcial, where he was describing that as the crisis was unfolding, the embassy was in a difficult position of on one side, having human rights groups wanting them to immediately confirm and validate the extent of the violations going on. And on the other hand, those Bomar and LD at the time wanting the embassy to suggest that this was being overblown or exaggerated. And so I think those were the beginning seeds. And that was happening in real time. And so the embassy was in a very difficult position then of having not really having proper information yet being called on to make statements. But I think that also indicated the contrasting realities, histories, legacies of what actually happened there. And while it's understandable that, in the present moment, not everyone would have the same set of facts. But this is now been going on for some years, and there have been many people that have come to look at and examine what exactly went on there and and should have all the facts in front of them. It was officially termed to be a genocide. And that even that determination, still has a controversy in some sectors. And so I really want I know, this is a sensitive and somewhat controversial topic, but I really want to touch upon this directly. I think it's very important, not just as an issue, but as you being a representative of the US Holocaust Museum, where to this day, there are Holocaust deniers, there are the same things being said, All these years on in many forms, whether it was a complete fabrication or whether the numbers weren't as severe as it was supposed to be. And so the Holocaust Museum mission is still continues to be that this this really happened. And here's the evidence of it. And that's something we also have to take seriously with the Ringo, which is much more recent. And one of the reasons I'm I'm asking this question is, somewhat coincidentally, or ironically, just a couple of days before while I was preparing for this interview, I was on Twitter. And I saw a series of tweets by the academic Derek Tonkin who is somewhat controversial, and he in this series of tweets, he had a lot of pushback. So Derek Thompson wrote, quote, The determination of genocide by Secretary Blinken was not was not made against Myanmar, but against the military only. Even then the evidence presented was far from convincing. The determination was a political, not a legal act. In any case, the evidence presented was partly based on the dubious analysis and misinformation with Secretary Blinken saw during his tour of the Holocaust Museum's Burma exhibit exhibition, the errors in this evidence I exposed in my to a EP brief. One of the documents referred to by Secretary blink and contains the astonishing statement that 82% of a representative sample of 1024 Rohingya interviews Rohingya refugees interviewed personally witnessed a killing 82% exclamation point, even 8.2% would be highly unlikely and quote.
Andrea Gittleman 33:50
So thanks for bringing that up. Well, so genocide determinations. In general, when made by a government, they tend to be political, but they should be based on a clear analysis of the facts at hand and an understanding of the law. So the museum itself undertook that exercise and worked with a number of people to understand their factual situation and with legal advisors to determine in December 2018, that the Burmese military had committed genocide against the Rohingya population. The moment that you're you're referencing in those quotes Secretary Blinken did come to the museum in March of 2020 20 to two he toured the Rohingya exhibition that I can I'm happy to share more about in a moment, and then offered his official determination that the Burmese military did commit genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya people. The determination itself was based on accurate information, including the interviews that you mentioned, those were conducted by the State Department through a documentation effort that it led with another group in Bangladesh. So those interviews were part of an effort by the US government to try to understand the facts of the case. And so that information was drawn upon and was referenced by Secretary Blinken and also features within the exhibition inside the Holocaust Museum to show the experience of of people, and some of the statistics are quite devastating. This this documentation was carried out by experts in their field by people who are deeply steeped in the methodology of collecting information from from survivor communities. So that information was headed by the the State Department and was to its credit to an effort by the department to understand the the nature of the crimes, the determination was made, and in our opinion, reflects the facts of the case. reasonable minds can disagree on legal analysis, genocide is a very specific crime that includes not only enumerated acts, but acts against a protected group acts against a protected group with the specific intent to destroy in whole or in substantial part that group. And there can be really robust conversations among experts who might differ in their analysis, all coming from reasonable positions. In this case, the information at hand, you know, was collected by the State Department. Information collected by civil society organizations was also influential and helpful for the State Department in in making its determination. So I think that there can be debate about genocide determinations. In this case, the museum stands by its finding, and you know, is supportive of, of what the US government did first to understand the facts and commission this effort to document what had happened, and to publicly share its determination, we think that is helpful to understand the the nature of the crimes. But even more importantly, I think, genocide determinations are not a particular end goal of of policymakers. And no one is cheering when a genocide determination is made, because that means we have all failed yet again, to prevent genocide from happening. And so a determination while important, it's an important and political moment, it can be a political moment. But what is more important is the response by governments to the early warning signs in the lead up to these crimes, and to the response of governments after the the crimes have been committed. So what can be done now to make sure that victims and survivors are protected to make sure justice is done and to mitigate the risks of the crimes reoccurring. So those are really important policy discussions that I think should be on the table as well.
Host 38:05
Right, I also want to ask, you know, going back to the US Holocaust Museum's mission, many missions, obviously, but one of them, at least in my mind, is to affirm this did happen. This was something that did happen. These are facts, this is history. These are, these are our, and having artifacts of the railway cars, or the personal effects or other things of the victims, that this is something real that happened and the reality of that history living with us today. May even for those that know about it already. It has. It's very emotional. It's a very profound thing to experience. And this and it acknowledges and affirms what happened, how it happened and the effect of that. And as you as the museum has taken an interest in looking at an A concern and looking at potential genocides and atrocities happening in other places, it's a similar motivation to want to affirm that something very bad is happening and and to do the documentation, present the evidence and to be able to state this as a fact in the world. And this is certainly what you've done with the contribution towards investigating and documenting the Rohingya crisis. And then, as you move you have a whole room exhibit in the museum that is documenting during the crisis and its impacted us policy and affirming that this really took place. You then have a noted academic who states publicly that not only is the information that you've collected and presented erroneous and obviously erroneous, but this erroneous information has contributed to a mistaken policy of the US based on basically wrong information which is diametrically opposed to the mission of wanting to assert the facts. due to fact, and so I wonder what kind of personal impact that has. I mean, I wonder if it's if it's a sense, as you said before, of just well, there's different determinations and kind of this clinical way of looking at it different academics and different people look at this in different ways. And it's a hard thing to sort out. And there's a way to separate from it just in in the more in that more kind of professional, technical way. Or if there's something that runs deeper when you hear a quote like that, where it feels like it's pushing against the very thing that you're trying to do. Right?
Andrea Gittleman 40:31
Well, it can be anything. So someone disagreeing with a legal determination can be reasonable. There also can be a a showing of denial of the crimes themselves. And one of the reasons as you mentioned that the reason why the US Holocaust Memorial Museum exists is to teach people about the Holocaust. And to counter those those tides of denial, which, which remain sadly strong today. The exhibition you mentioned, which is called Burma's path to genocide, which tells the story of the Rohingya people over the decades over the 20th century, looking at what happened, particularly in the village of Manu, and cataloging the stories of survivors and their experiences on August 27 2017. Through today, one of the reasons why we had that that story, and trying to tell this the story within the Holocaust Museum is to also guard against the forces of denial regarding what has happened against the range of people. And this is not something that is from stuff from academics or the West, but also from people within Burma, who might be questioning the veracity of, of what Rohingya communities have been sharing. And so having that within the museum, having a place where people can come and learn about what has happened, which was extremely important for us, we've also translated parts of the exhibition into Burmese to share that with people with audiences within Burma, who were interested in learning more about about what had happened there. But that was one of the the goals of having this exhibition is to allow Rohingya survivors in their own words, and importantly, in the range of language share what had happened to them. And one of the things we tried to do with the exhibition is allow audiences and visitors to try to grapple with some of these these difficult problems, you know, some of the problems in the lead up to the genocide, when early warning signs were evident, and when genocide perhaps could have been prevented, what could have been done then? And I think it forces some serious introspection, and, you know, tries to, on a personal level, allow people to grapple with, you know, what, what could have been done? And then what should be done now. And the ruins are one of many communities who have been at risk of genocide, what can we learn from that experience to make sure that again, we do not fail people who who are at risk? What can we make sure that this does not become repeated again in the future.
Host 43:05
And I think it really does affirm that I was just talking to the Burmese artist that goes by the name Bart was not here, and about his visit to this exhibit when he was in DC. And one of the things he said that really stuck out was how profound it was to see a and I might be getting this wrong, I'm trying to remember exactly what he said. But I believe that there's a panel that is actually a reproduction of a Facebook post that Aung San su chi made that was questioning or denying that rabid taking place. And that to for BART to know is following this along and being so angry when it happened, but it's just happening in the cyberspace and you know, one of many things and to see this displayed real, you know, something hard, you can touch. It just had this profound impact on him that there was this reality to just the selection of all the things that were out there to choose that and to put that up, and then to have all the 1000s of people come and see that it affirmed something in him that he felt was kind of slipping by and in the whole discussion and crisis that was going on. And it was very profound for him that the museum and made the decision to be able to take those particular words and put them up there for all to see is a testament that this is what was actually said.
Andrea Gittleman 44:22
And and so glad to hear that feedback. And we we wanted to show that, you know, perpetrators commit genocide, they often commit genocide within an environment that allows it to happen. And so it's a complicated story to tell we only have three rooms of the museum to tell the story and knowing that visitors might come into the exhibition with very little knowledge previously about about the situation. But we want it to show a bit of complexity around you know what it means to, to, you know, stem the forces of hate. What does it mean to create an environment I Where genocide might happen? What does it mean to create an environment where people are protected from from such crimes. And that's what we tried to do in the exhibition. There are places in the exhibition where as I mentioned, you can hear the range of language where survivors are speaking in their own words about what had happened. We also have Riggins a music we also share our hinge of history and culture. We want to make sure that visitors learn Rohingya are more than yes, the victims of genocide, that they they are an entire people with with a rich history that should be understood and celebrated. And also that genocide does not happen in you know, one day a violent attack or in you know, in a particular moment, there are early warning signs, there are always warning signs. And that there also is a long tail that the trauma of genocide persists for individuals, but also through generations. So we tried to tell that entire story in these three rooms that look at early warning signs, the attacks on on Hmong new in this case, and then the aftermath and and what people are living with today. And one of the most powerful experiences I've had in the exhibition was bringing through young Rohingya community members and maybe two dozen or so people who didn't speak English for the most part, and people who are relying on translators need to understand some some parts of the exhibition. But then they could hear from from people speaking, Rohingya speaking their own language, and they, they didn't need to have a translator. And it was as if the space you know, was theirs, the space had been made for them. And that was really powerful to me. And I, you know, to to colleagues who had been working on the exhibition, we create the exhibition for many reasons. But one is also to create a space where stories of people who have experienced and aside today can can be heard, and can see their stories reflected in in the museum.
Host 47:03
And getting back to Secretary blink ins visit when I referenced that in the tweet, you said there was more to say about that. So I just wanted to return to that and anything you wanted to share about the impact of his visit or his impressions? Sure,
Andrea Gittleman 47:19
well, I think, um, I think the determination he made was meaningful, meaningful, not because it's politically expedient, but meaningful because it reflected the facts that had been documented and meaningful because of the the people who were gathered in that room. There were Rohingya community leaders, and also members of other, you know, other communities who had experienced mass atrocities across Burma coming together to hear the Secretary's determination was not, you know, it wasn't only about the the findings of genocide, but was about the the importance of, of, of understanding the trends of hate, and understanding the role that people should take in preventing genocide in the future, the roles that female governments should be taking in and all of us, and it was incredibly meaningful, I think, to have the exhibition and to have the museum play a very small role, at least in you know, serving as a place where that kind of information can be shared with the public. But as I mentioned before, that's not that is certainly not a goal, it's not a goal, to have that kind of determination to have that kind of finding. And now, I think the question is, you know, with the devastating violence we're seeing facing so many communities, what can be done to limit the capacity of perpetrators, to, you know, to continue to target civilians, what can be done to protect those who are at risk today, those who have experienced genocide, but also the millions of others throughout the country who perhaps have not, but still are equally deserving of protection from, from mass atrocities from from other targeted violence? And how should our policies adapt to this really worrisome trend in Burma today? And I think those are, those are questions that are, I think, animating policy discussions today, and very much should be should be at the fore when we're thinking about how governments and how all of us should be responding and reacting to the information coming out of Burma today. When
Host 49:21
the determination was made, there were some voices like the tweet that I read that at the time and to this day, feel that it was political, it was overblown, it was incorrect. It wasn't as bad as people say. Then there was the other response. And this also reflects that, again, going back to the conversation I had with Scott Marcial have been between these these different polls of different strong views have seen it. There was a response by when the determination came there. There was there were some who felt the kind of validation or officialdom of an acceptance of verification that this had happened. But there were many in the Human Rights Committee There are human rights community, I should say that I remember hearing at the time that were upset because they felt that this was nothing to celebrate because it had taken so long and there was no excuse why? Why so many years have passed without this being done that there was a lot of momentum that could have happened if it was done earlier, and that they actually charged it was political, that it wasn't done before, and that it wasn't really something to it, the potential positivity of moving forward and building momentum from this determination, taking those next steps that you talked about, was outweighed by the fact that it took as long as it did to reach this point. Well,
Andrea Gittleman 50:38
in this case, the determination did take quite a few years after the State Department had its own documentation effort to uncover a lot of the facts of the situation. And so some of that, again, you know, not speaking as someone within the government demand, some of that could have been political, some of that could have been just operational. I also think there's a lot of care that needs to be taken when doing this kind of analysis. Still, it was several years late, in my opinion, in general, there can be, you know, a brutal violence against civilians, that perhaps does not meet the definition of genocide, in this case, that that was not not so and in this case, we did see an attempt to destroy on the part of the perpetrators. And so we thought that the facts were making that case clear earlier, as I said, reasonable minds might disagree on the legal analysis. But there has been so much information gathered not only by by Rohingya by independent documentaries, but also by the US government that that led to this finding. The finding was, you know, based on one source, but it was really helpful, I think, to to have some kind of official finding, I share the views of those your summarize earlier that it did come too late. But again, determination is not a specific end goal, it's to me, a determination is made when you, you know, look at the law and look at the facts and see if a definition is met. The museum put out a report called by any other name, which looks at the history of us genocide determinations. And of course, those determinations are, are always made, like with the political realities of the day. In this case, the the facts matched the law. And so that's why the museum issued its own determination, which was backed by a community of independent legal experts as well, that came out again, but four years before the State Department before Secretary of Blinken offered offered his own. But even if there had been no determination, or even you know, in the time spent in between, you know, the accepting and committed and a determination of it being met, there still are this time to put forward policies that can help, you know, limit the capacity of perpetrators or protect victims. And none of that is automatically hinging on a particular determination. Those determinations can create moments of momentum of political opportunity. Sure, but there can be a lot of progress made, no matter what a determination can be a bit even now, if we look at what what is happening now. I think just making sure that there's been efforts to be redoubled, to make sure that communities at risk of of mass violence and mass atrocities in the country today know that the US is doing all I can to try to try to protect them.
Host 53:40
That's a really good point that looking at this determination is one step at a process. I think that we do get really caught up in this word, this designation, the implications and the meaning behind it. And for someone as involved as you are, I think it's a very good reminder, to know that this is a kind of checkpoint along the way, that's an important one, but it's not. It's certainly not what we're trying to get. So let's move the conversation to that and post coup, you know, Riku, during the transition period, your museum and your position within the museum was particularly looking at the growing concern of these atrocities taking place and later making that determination of genocide as a transition was also happening alongside it. And yet, after the coup, we're plunged into a totally different reality or maybe not completely different, it's some kind of extenuation of what we had before but it's certainly different than were some areas of the transition was going into. And so where we are now with post coup with the military regime, meeting out such brutal punishment of all peoples, not just Rohingya, not just ethnic and religious minorities, but Bomar as well. We're seeing fighting in rural sky and region As the dry zone as it's called, that really in previous conflicts and past history we haven't really seen much of since perhaps the post independence communist era or the communist insurrections that happened around there. And so you're seeing a, I think, what can be called a real indiscriminate violence against everyone. I mean, they're bombing pagodas. They're taking over modern Buddhist monasteries. The this regime, which somehow justifies its existence by protecting Buddhism is destroying Buddhism, and literally occupying monasteries to stage operations, among many, many other things.
Andrea Gittleman 55:37
Well, I think the the future might look bleak, just given the state of the crimes, as you described, for us, in terms of, you know, the US government response, it has has been responding and has has issued sanctions and has been working in coordination with with allies to, to make sure that those the sanctions are effective. And that's, that's helpful. So far, those efforts have been insufficient to stem the violence, from what civil society leaders are calling for, they're looking for sanctions on the Numark oil and gas enterprises to try to keep the military from enriching itself. And, you know, being able to, to purchase the weapons and have the ability to, you know, bomb its own people, basically, the people are calling for restrictions on jet fuel, because the the military is using air power is a prime way to target civilians now. And those are ways to just make it harder for the military to commit these crimes. I think another another approach could be to dissuade perpetrators from committing crimes that same over the past several decades of trying, I'm not sure what what could be successful there. But at least making it less less possible. So that's, that's something that I think matches what a lot of civil society groups are saying in terms of what needs to be done. And if that could be done in a coordinated, coordinated way amongst several countries, you could be left with a perpetrator just maybe is still bent on oppressing and victimizing its own people, but it's just less able to do so which might offer a bit of relief. And then offering more support for the really the well established expert civil society groups, many of whom you might be in the country and might have been pushed to the border areas, people doing the really important work to protect people to offer support to people who have been displaced, those are essential efforts. And the need probably will not be diminishing in the near term. And doing whatever you know, can be done to support those those experts to those local groups who are providing those essential services. And then there are efforts from civil society to not only document what is happening, but try to bring that information into a formal accountability efforts. And I think that governments can also support people like Newton Ken, who's bringing a case in Argentina under this principle of universal jurisdiction, about the genocide of the Rohingya, and trying to help in in other cases to make the case that perpetrators should be held accountable for what what has happened, including in a formal, a formal legal setting. So there's a lot that I think can be done. I don't want to diminish the important work that has been done already. But just given the state of violence. And the the trauma that has been inflicted and continues to be inflicted on populations, there needs to be more there needs to be more from the US and from from other governments in a coordinated way to make sure that people can receive a bit more protection.
Host 58:49
And another thing that's been looked at is responsibility to protect this was something that you actually that the museum did a report on in 2013 are questioning if Responsibility to Protect known as RTP. If that might be relevant in the developing crisis at the time with the Rohingya, this in the initial days and weeks after the coup, there were signs that we saw all over the country all over Myanmar that were calling on RTP. And then frustration afterwards, when nothing seemed to happen,
Andrea Gittleman 59:21
right well as a norm of responsibility to protect that refers to the obligation of states to protect their own people, and then the obligation after that for other countries to to assist those those governments in in upholding that obligation. And so I wouldn't kind of reduce that norm to intervention. I do think that's how it's often understood that I don't think that's, that's correct. And in this case, probably not helpful. I think when we look at the potential opportunities for prevention in the, I think in the lead up to the Rohingya genocide, but also in the lead up to the coup intervention is would probably not be helpful. One, especially in military intervention was what you know, have come with with many risks of its own. But there are lots of other things that can be done in terms of protecting civilians. And so just thinking about what what more could have been done in the lead up to 2017. And I know the US, as you've explained before, has had been in a difficult position of wanting to support the fledgling democracy movement and wanting to do what it can to, to throw its weight behind the democratic transition. But also understanding that risks of genocide are serious and cannot be ignored. And what more could have been done, then? And what could What more could have been done to make sure that there were national conversations amongst the democracy movement, about making sure that, that all those in the country they know all civilians can be protected, and people who are looking for a better future for their country, I'm sure have a vision for for all of their people. And I think ensuring that kind of the kind of conversation as part of the transition was probably difficult, but I think could have been, could have been an important missing piece. And then thinking about what could have been done in the lead up to the coup again, not not talking about intervention, but just thinking a bit more seriously, about what kinds of repercussions the military could have faced, I mean, we're two and a half years in, and they you know, that the military still is able to enrich itself, and that not only from, you know, kind of bad actors, not only from from China or Russia, but from from its own enterprises, and that there is no, there's certainly no global arms embargo. And there aren't even coordinated efforts, among other states to, as I mentioned, restrict the the items that the military is using, and that it would need to continue its violent campaign against its people. So there is a lot more that can be done. And so in the in terms of the the state of the norm of responsibility to protect the norm is alive and well. And I think our understanding should include a broad spectrum of prevention and understanding what those those tools could be. And just if I may, that the museum has a list on our website of tools for atrocity prevention of all the various efforts that could be undertaken and should be seriously considered by governments, when early warning signs are present. There are there are many different tools in the toolbox, so to speak, that that should be considered and perhaps are not all applicable or would not all be successful in all situations, but are deserving of due consideration. And I think that's something that we're not seeing across the board, the idea of, you know, there are a number of tools that number of approaches, perhaps lessons from from other contexts that that could be could be helpful when charting what us or other policies, you know, on on genocide, prevention, could be in in Burma or in other places in the future.
Host 1:02:49
Right, thanks for that clarification. As we're moving on in this crisis, I want to ask about the role of the museum itself, and what all you're doing with that some of the things I know. And I'll just reference here, and you can go into more detail and perhaps expand on other activities, I don't know are planning upcoming plans. I know that you're part of a Burma advocacy groups that sharing information and strategies and networking to look at how to affect policy. And you've already discussed in this conversation, how the the work you've done in the way of reports, media advocacy, the exhibits, everything else, have contributed towards trying to influence policy in terms of what the US doing with it, as you said just recently, that the we want to see the US doing absolutely all it can to be able to limit the devastation that's being caused to these vulnerable communities. So there's that there's obviously the exhibit, the Rangers exhibit that that is that anyone can see if they're in DC and go to the Holocaust Museum, I highly recommend it's not specifically about the coup, but it is. It certainly is related in terms of what this military regime is capable of and what they're now doing to other populations throughout the country. And then you've also had a recent panel. There's we'll have a link to it in the show notes. But you had a panel of four different Burmese guests from different backgrounds that were able to talk about post coup and reality of their communities and the things that they would like to see the US government do in terms of policy. So share a bit about the thinking and rationale behind why the museum is playing a role at this time in this ongoing crisis, as well as some more of the specific actions that maybe you haven't mentioned are things that you're thinking about and ways that you would like to see the museum's response being a player in this. Sure,
Andrea Gittleman 1:04:42
sir, well, you captured a lot of them the main threads of our work. So the public event that you mentioned, was looking at, you know, leaders from communities across Burma talking about mass atrocity risks today and what the US government could do in response. So that that includes you know, the the situation using their hands up, but not exclusively looking at what is happening in Chin State and kitchen, state and current state and then the Central Plains, as you mentioned before, what is happening across the country and what kinds of responses are unnecessary at this time. So thank you for sharing information about that. And that that's part of a vein of educating the public but also having policy relevant conversations here in Washington to bring the the expertise from different communities who are at risk to those kinds of policy discussions. So that that is an ongoing theme of our work. The exhibition Burma's path, a genocide, as you mentioned, currently available here in Washington, please do come and visit in person, if you're able, if you're not able to come to Washington to come to the museum and see the exhibition, it's also available online, called Burma's path to genocide. The content is similar, it's not the same, but you can hear some of the stories that I referenced earlier stories of survivors who among knew, and that really is meant to not only kind of spark a an emotional connection with the experience of survivors, but also to kind of have those difficult questions about what what could have been done, what can be done now. It's kind of it's difficult sometimes to grapple with, with failures to prevent genocide. But having these stories having context as an important way in which that can be done, we have lesson plans for teachers who want to take the information in the exhibition, and use that to teach others, we, of course, as an educational institution at the museum, want to make sure that we're doing what we can to share this information with the public and those who are able to kind of spread it within within their networks to and then a lot of our work is private, you know, talking with people across DC, trying to keep momentum going kind of keep a focus on the plight of people at risk of atrocities across Burma, and doing what we can to make sure that the policy conversations can continue to take that with the utmost seriousness, and making sure you know, options for response and preventive efforts that I mentioned, are given that, you know, they're the serious consideration that that they should have. So we have the the public facing work. And then also the the more private conversation is trying to make sure that US policymakers have the support and the resources that they need to do this important work.
Host 1:07:25
Oh, that's great. Thank you for sharing that. And I think that brings us up to speed in your background, the senators background, through the range of crisis, and then today and the post Cool World, and your role in the senators role in that. So I thank you very much for taking the time to have this discussion. And just want to invite you if there's anything that we haven't brought up in this talk that you would like to get into now, before we close? Sure. Well,
Andrea Gittleman 1:07:49
thank you for inviting me to be on this program today. And the only thing that I would close with is just a moment of appreciation and a note of thanks for the many advisors and partners and colleagues we have from the Rohingya community, but also from from many other communities in Burma who have been so instrumental in our work. The exhibition wouldn't be here if it weren't for groups of you know, two dozen advisors who helped us everything on on content and how to to share the story with the public. And so it was with a good dose of humility that we undertook that work and really, it couldn't have been done without our partners so just wanted to end with a note of appreciation for all of them.
Host 1:08:44
Since the coup better Burma has provided consistent humanitarian aid to vulnerable communities across Myanmar. Over time, however, we have also come to realize that another consequence of the coup is a severely collapsed economy. Trade and Tourism have almost entirely evaporated, and local artists and community suddenly found every opportunity of continuing livelihood closed off to them. To help support those artists and communities. Better Burma now brings item direct from their workshop into your home. These lovely pieces from a far corner of the world will not only light up your room or make a lovely gift for a loved one. But they'll also help dozens of artisans create sustainable businesses and livelihoods. Part of each purchase will also go towards our ongoing nonprofit mission. See these beautiful crafts, visit a local crafts.com That's a loca A L Okay, a crafts C R A F T S one word a local crafts.com. Of course as your preference you can also consider making a donation through our normal channels. If you would like to join in our mission to support those in Myanmar who are being impacted by the military coup. We welcome your contribution in any form of currency or transfer method. Your donation will go on to support a wide range of humanitarian and media missions. A In those local communities who need it most donations are directed to such causes as the Civil Disobedience movement CDM families of deceased victims, internally displaced person IDP camps, food for impoverished communities, military defection campaigns, undercover journalists, refugee camps, monasteries and nunneries education initiatives, the purchasing of protective equipment and medical supplies COVID relief and more. We also make sure that our donation Fund supports a diverse range of religious and ethnic groups across the country. We invite you to visit our website to learn more about past projects as well as upcoming needs. You can give a general donation or earmark your contribution to a specific activity or project you would like to support, perhaps even something you heard about in this very episode. All of this humanitarian work is carried out by our nonprofit mission that are Burma. And the donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fun. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website better burma.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause in both websites except credit card. You can also give via PayPal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we can take donations through Patreon Venmo GoFundMe and Cash App. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either website for specific links to these respective accounts or email us at info@betterburma.org. That's betterburma. One word, spelled b e t t e r b u r m a.org. If you'd like to give it another way, please contact us. We also invite you to check out our range of handicrafts that are sourced from vulnerable artists and communities across Myanmar available at alokacrafts.com Any purchase will not only support these artists and communities but also our nonprofits wider mission. That's a local crafts spilled 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.