Transcript: Episode #334: Exit Wounds
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 00:08
Unbelievably, the world is ignoring one of the most important movements of our time, the struggle for justice, dignity and freedom unfolding in the heart of Myanmar, the guests we bring on our podcast platform, refuse to look away. Instead, they dive deep into the stories that matter of resilience and resistance of ordinary people standing up against extraordinary odds. While the headlines may move on, in some cases, we seek out voices and perspectives that are too often overlooked, and so we believe that Insight Myanmar is more than just a podcast. It's a platform that seeks truth, connection and solidarity with our guests and with our listeners.
Host 02:05
James Rodehaver, thank you for joining us on this episode of Inside Myanmar podcast.
James Rodehaver 02:08
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Host 02:11
It's been quite a week, and we actually recorded a discussion last month that has not come out yet. That was more of an overview of your background and the background of your your your mission and your team. And so I would like to ask you to share your background and your role and that of your team and mission to listeners who might not be familiar.
James Rodehaver 02:35
Sure. Well, my name is James redahaver. I'm the head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office on Myanmar, I run basically a small team of investigators and fact finders who fulfill the high Commissioner's mandate on human rights issues in Myanmar, that includes both investigating the human rights situation in the country, providing guidance to the UN country team, and assisting and enabling civil society organizations to both protect and educate the population of Myanmar on human rights. My background is that I'm a lawyer and I have worked in human rights for the United Nations or other international organizations for the last 29 years, and I've worked in at this point, nine different conflict zones or post conflict zones, and so I sort of specialize in running investigations into serious human rights violations.
Host 03:45
Thank you for that background, and let's get right into it. How has this last week been for you?
James Rodehaver 03:50
Well, it's been exhausting. It's been exhausting for a variety of reasons, first and foremost, that the people of Myanmar have been through quite a five year period from COVID and then the coup, and then the general worsening and intensification of violence in the post crew coup crisis, pardon me, and it has been an extremely difficult time to see those people who have struggled so much to keep a coherent resistance alive against the military despite increasing brutality, suddenly have to deal with the aftermath of this horrible natural disaster. The other thing that makes this so awful is is that, as per its very long history and pattern, the Myanmar military has not missed an opportunity to make a horrible situation absolutely worse. They have since the first hour after the earthquake, continued to launch. Launch relentless military operations targeting their foes, which they define to be not just armed groups, but the civilian population as a whole. And so they have launched since the first hour after the earthquake, over 100 attacks since the 1pm on the 28th of March. And so over the last nine days, there have been over 100 attacks, including, of course, a large number of air strikes, in some cases targeting rescue workers and civilians who are trying to get people out from the rubble, and that includes in areas as far ranging as sagain mogway, areas of Mandalay San state ba go all the earthquake impacted areas, but then also in Rakhine kah chin And Khin Kyaw, so they are still keeping up a full scale military effort against their own people, despite this crisis, and despite an announced ceasefire, which took effect on the second of April.
Host 06:15
Yeah, it's really just one disaster on top of another. And yet, despite that those atrocities taking place, it's it's barely that Myanmar, as usual, is barely able to stay in the world's headlines as a story worth reporting, which is why we are here giving it that attention it so well deserves, and given your, your your your research and explanation into the ongoing attacks and assaults that the military has persisted. And I'd like to ask a question about a localization and Frontline responders, given that there are such persistent restrictions on humanitarian access and heightened needs following these this, this terrible disaster of the earthquake, I'm wondering how, as far as you know, UN agencies are adapting delivery mechanisms on the ground, and if you can speak to whether there's been any increased flexibility in the UN's engagement guidelines or criteria for eligible partners to be able to enable community based organizations and Frontline responders to take the lead in aid dissemination.
James Rodehaver 07:22
Well, I think that the UN has been adapting, over a long period now, to this crisis, and so a major part of the UN's engagement has been to to to really fast track localization in many ways, trying to ensure that wherever possible, it delivers locally and coordinates locally. Rather than trying to do some large, top down humanitarian coordination effort, they really try to take advantage of access, when and where they can get it. And of course, access has been tightly restricted and heavily restricted by the military. It's part of their strategy, and the UN has been having to do some things that make it very uncomfortable in order to adapt, and that includes also having to, wherever possible, deliver informally or support unofficial efforts to deliver assistance and aid, and there are many reasons for that. It's not just because of the limits of access and the limitations on the ability to import goods, basic humanitarian supplies, into the country. It's also because of the risk that critical supplies will be confiscated by the military, used for military purposes, or what's even worse, that humanitarians and implementing partners will be targeted on the ground for arrest, or worse, violence.
Host 08:59
Yeah, and that segues into the next question of looking at this impact of conscription, and I wonder to what extent you've seen the impact of forced conscription on civil society and humanitarian response capacity, with 10s of 1000s of young people that are now fleeing or going into hiding, others fearing conscription, or worse, being killed, being murdered by the military. How does the humanitarian and protection landscape shift under such conditions? And I want to add just an additional context here, in the series of emergency interviews that we have published in since the earthquake, there there have been any number of Burmese people that we've spoken to on this platform that have said, with such sadness that the normal people that would be engaged at this time that they've they've been arrested, they've fled the country. They're on CDM they're underground. They're in fear of their lives or on. You know they're not available for some other tragic reason to be able to go out. And so it's, again, it's just this tragedy on tragedy that even in the history of not being able to expect the state, meaning the the military regime, in whatever form it's taken, to be able to provide anything for the people, the normal parts of society that have stepped up and provided for one another. Either aren't there for those above listed reasons, or if they are, the danger to them in doing something is extreme in a way it's never been before.
James Rodehaver 10:32
No, absolutely. The conditions that humanitarians and local communities are having to deliver assistance in right now is absolutely appalling and and it's and it's in a critical moment where we're essentially communities are trying to pull together to do things that they are completely unsuited to do. You. You cannot take a group of just normal people and just say, Okay, you find people buried under your tons of rubble. You you that you need specialized equipment. You need specialized knowledge. You need you engineers. You need people who are actually capable of dealing with things like crush wounds and able to give first hand on site information so that you don't make a disaster site even worse by trying to dig people out. And yet those capacities are being denied to the huge proportion of the areas impacted by the earthquake, because the military has been for the longest time restricting the ability of any assistance to go across what they consider to be the front lines of the of the conflict and the fighting and and what that does is it places people under again an untenable situation. People have to go in hiding. They have to protect themselves first. It's very hard. And this is the thing, it's an almost perverse conundrum that humanitarians are placed under that in order to do no harm on and to serve the beneficiaries that they are there to serve, they have to first, also take care of themselves and make sure that that they are not making themselves a target, that they are not putting themselves in harm's way, so that they're actually able to give assistance. And then, of course, by extension, they don't want anything they do to place a target on the people, they're there to help, so they're placed in a virtually impossible situation. And you have to look no further than these reports that in some villages, either pusati or or military groups have raided villages or towns in sag or in Mandalay or other areas, and they've selected out young people that are in the rubble helping to dig people out, and they are grabbing those people either for forcible conscription or taking them off to do forced labor for the military. And what is striking about reports like that, and I'll stress that they're reports we still have not been able to verify anything any of these incidents. We have very reliable information, and it's very credible because it fits a pattern and practice of behavior that the military has undertaken for a very long time. But that said, it just shows where the military's priorities are and where their focus is that they are there still pushing to achieve military objectives. They are not there to help the people and the other side of all of this, the probably the worst aspect of all of this, that that I hear very few journalists talking about, including the journalists covering the the aftermath of this earthquake is wherever we talk to people on the ground, the one thing we are not hearing is, oh, soldiers were there helping us dig people out. Soldiers were there bring you know, whether it be military engineers or others, are not there on the ground trying to help people. They the humanitarian effort is being left up to rescue crews from outside the country, from countries friendly to the military, or it's being left to the humanitarians. And you don't have this massive mobilization of the military, they're trying to help people get out of this just impossible situation, this awful situation, and that, to me, is it's a direct dereliction of the entire purpose of a military and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international law, more generally, human rights law and the walls which. Set out, the purpose of a military is to protect its people, to ensure that services, critical services in times of emergency, make it to the people that need it most. And that is a damning, damning situation. And yet, what you see last Friday is min Aung Lang, traveling outside of the country, coming to an international conference of the BIM stick countries here in Bangkok, and being glad handed glossy photographs being taken with different world leaders, with this man who has done nothing except for exacerbate and magnify the suffering of his own people.
Host 15:48
So in other words, it sounds like this absolute dereliction of duty, which you've so passionately described that up till now, they're getting away with it with flying colors, sadly.
James Rodehaver 15:59
For the moment, yes, and it's only going to be, I mean, incredibly, it's only going to be much later in this process. It's going to be when, I think, right now, the humanitarians that are in Myanmar are are overwhelmed. They are firefighting. They are just going to anywhere where they find people in desperate need, and they're delivering help and service, and they're coordinating with one another. They're delivering locally, but right now, very little of that assistance is getting over to areas that the military do not control, and that's because they don't have the people, they don't have the supplies in place to make a push to go to areas that the military don't control yet. But whenever they do get that opportunity, whenever you have the effort, they the humanitarian effort ramped up to an adequate level and it and if enough supplies get into the country to provide that level of help and assistance, then we will see what happens. Most likely, what I think will happen is the military is very likely to say, no, no. Assistance will go across the lines into areas we don't control, and that will truly be tragic, especially since what we have not seen yet is any push by as ASEAN or other neighboring countries to ensure aid is going cross border to get to those areas that the military don't control.
Host 17:37
Right? And so what we're seeing now is the immediate after effects of the disaster. As anyone in disaster relief knows, there are different stages of of how you're carrying and what you're doing at those different appropriate stages and and what the the goals are. And indeed, we've spoken again to uh Burmese on this podcast, who have been in the Mandalay saga in Region trying to help, and have already started complaining about lack of proper needs assessment, just as it's been described, panic donations of large quantities of the same types of things given to the same types of places and and as Lily described in a recent episode, she said, you know, we I don't see order anywhere there. There needs to be. And I made the comment, you know, after any natural disaster, you just take the wildfires in Los Angeles recently, the definition of a disaster is that order breaks down. I mean, that happens any country, anywhere, any society in the world. It's the RE establishment of some kind of urgent order that people can respect, that that can, can bring people in line, and can bring order to that chaos that is needed next. And you know, as we're looking at, on one hand, the monsoons coming again, more devastation upon devastation, as we're looking at the scarcity of international aid coming into Myanmar and that which does going through those official channels again, we To quote another podcast guest, the international community would almost be better off not giving anything if it's going to go through military channels then, then giving something at all, it will actually make things worse to if this is where it's going. So the question I have is, you know, just as you have these different stages of organized disaster relief in, in a better case scenario here, it seems like we have these stages of worsening disaster situations that I don't know what the precedent is for, for looking at what this is going to how this is going to devolve, because I don't, I don't know the precedent of a natural disaster that has happened under these conditions. And so just as right now, we're looking at the the absolute devastation of, you know, videos that we probably all seen of people sleeping in the in the streets, literally in the streets, and having so little and using the. Hands to dig out rubble. This is, this is the story of this week. But as this continues to unfold and we go through different phases, what what are you anticipating? What are you dreading and having nightmares about, as we're looking at the different phases of not the relief but the disaster that we enter into.
James Rodehaver 20:19
Well, I what I really fear is a is a large scale military offensive to push into the the earthquake affected areas of Saginaw is, is what I think that the the the absolute worst case scenario would look like at this moment, especially at a time when the full extent of of the destruction in those areas, which are really the epicenter of the earthquake, that is still very much unknown, and I hear all sorts of anecdotes of the smells in these villages and towns that were affected getting worse And worse because people are dying in the rubble and, and it is so hot and humid right now, and just, you know, it's really just a bleak scenario on the ground. And, and it could be made infinitely worse if there is just this intensive, you know, military offensive thing. I have to say that, you know, the the military's efforts in the last few days seem to be increasing and so so I just, I just am living in real, Real nervously watching what happens next on the military front, especially once we hit this this, of course, the right now, it seems the cease fire that was declared by the military is fictional at best. But once it does expire on the 22nd of April, I just wonder if then that that will be sort of the signal for a wider scale military effort. But what I do think is, is rather urgent. Is, is that you know any and all you know efforts to provide cash assistance or or any efforts whatsoever, official, unofficial, to get supplies to those earthquake impacted areas that there really be a concerted push for that very, very soon. The thing that I think that is really difficult for people to understand is is that these areas that are the worst affected are areas where you did not have a large humanitarian presence. And not only has the infrastructure of the country been badly damaged, and it is difficult to get supplies to these areas, but in the past several months, it has been very difficult to get supplies into the country, you have a lot of the humanitarian community. One of the ways they've been able to keep delivering is through providing direct cash assistance and supporting local markets and local populations, by getting them cash that they can spend locally. But that depends, of course, on having goods available, on having commercial businesses open and functioning, and so so actually getting actual physical assistance that people need based off needs assessments that's right now, something that's just urgently needed in these areas that are not being serviced. And just the last thing I would say on this is that I find it so insidious that yesterday, there was an announcement made that the military is directing all media outlets and all organizations to start calling this the Mandalay earthquake. It's like they're trying to brand it as you know, Mandalay was the epicenter. So Mandalay and nappy doll, that's the areas that need the assistance the most. Whenever, I think anyone that can read a map can see that the worst impacts appear to have been in sagain And of course, there are several towns and smaller cities in Saginaw that were devastated. And the full extent of that is not known, and they are the ones right now that need help the most, but just trying to rebrand that. It's just these subtle ways of trying to control the narrative. And of course, if the focus is on Mandalay, then the focus will be on what the humanitarians are doing there.
Host 24:40
I appreciate your attention to the narrative, as well as calling out your concerns of what journalists are missing about the story, because it is. It had its, you know, it's 15 minutes of international coverage and that, as we all expected, that came and went, as usually is the case with Myanmar and. And, and. So it's, it's so important right now to be able to touching upon this narrative and and, and making sure that those that that know, that have a deeper knowledge, are correcting and filling in the gaps of what's either neglectful or willful. So So I appreciate that, and I want to, I want to bring together a couple of things you've said. You mentioned just now the need, the urgent, critical need of needs assessments across these the badly hit areas. And it's really shocking to hear you say, perhaps not surprising, yet still shocking that even you and those close to the situation don't know the full extent of the damage. I think that just underscores the amount of ignorance right now in not and if we don't know, you know, just imagine what went on there a week ago and what's been happening since, combined with what you said a few minutes ago in talking about the absolute need of the technical assistance that needs to come in that you can't just expect normal people anywhere to be able to have the the highly trained skills of knowing how to manage disasters. And we had Chris Milligan on last week, who headed the USAID office in Burma, describing what the USAID response would have been. And so that's, you know, another double or trippy triple or quadruple whammy we're looking at for hitting Burma as USAID being pulled out. But what I'm curious on your end is that where there's this demand, this need for needs assessment and for people coming in with critical skills, has Are you aware of on the UN side or other international bodies trying to to bring these and and and have these types of skill individuals come in and be able to provide both the knowledge and disaster relief as well as conduct the needs assessment? Has that been there on the table, and has that been rejected, as far as you're able to share?
James Rodehaver 27:07
Well, I know that there are talks underway. There is there are, to my knowledge, there have been a number of UN agencies and international organizations with needs assessment teams and experts who have been on standby, waiting to come in to the country and and I know that those requests have been made to the military. I know a variety of officials have come to Myanmar, including the emergency, Emergency Relief Coordinator of the United Nations, who was in country last week to make the case for bringing in those sorts of expert teams. The extent to which I am not up on the latest I will not purport to know where those negotiations are at currently, to bring in those people, I know that the military has said publicly a few times that it doesn't want, you know, to be overrun with foreigners in the country. Of course, this is a long standing position of the military going back decades, and so their tune does not really change, even in the gravest of circumstances. So, you know, I do know that those services are on offer and are on standby and could be in the country, you know, I think in very short order, the question is, are they going to get in? And if they get in, where will they be allowed to go? I also note that, you know, the military, just in recent days, has said that it expects any humanitarian efforts, whether it be, you know, needs assessments, delivery of any sort to be done in full compliance with the associations and registration law. And that is is also a rather ominous, you know, bell to ring at this particular time, because that means it's only the civil society groups that have gone through the registration process that the military cooked in order to, you know, weaken civic space and humanitarian organizations two and a half years ago that they're expecting that to be sort of the filter that all these efforts are run through, and that's really not a good sign that they're actually trying to already filter out people that could help, rather than simply trying to ensure that the people who need assistance get it.
Host 29:38
Yeah, this just sounds like Nargis all over again, the same playbook that we saw through there. And yet, another danger of this and another desire that we see in the military's playbook is that not on top of everything that you said, that when aid comes in, you know, number one, they want to siphon it and confiscate. It to as large a degree as possible, and while doing so, they also want to use that as an opportunity, now more than ever, of legitimization and being able to to to have the photo ops, have the meetings, to demand the handshakes that can confer some degree of legitimacy on them, while they're increasingly doing things that are illegitimate in every sense of the definition. And so these are real challenges for UN teams and international bodies to come in and to want to bring their skills, their people, their supplies into the right areas, but knowing this danger of conferring legitimacy and of supplies being siphoned off in the wrong direction and even towards military offenses. So how for for a UN agency or or leader coming in? How do you navigate such sensitivities, knowing that those are possible?
James Rodehaver 30:57
Well, I think you have to go into any sort of environment like that, very clear eyed, and you have to be very closely coordinated. I think that first and foremost, that any UN official that comes in, any official of, frankly, of any organization, has to come in and be aware of really two things. That one, you have to listen to people that understand the situation and that understand, you know, the military and how they work. It's critical to go in and not try to simply, you know, wing your dealings with with them. Secondly, it's critical to coordinate and share information as much as possible with your partners and with other agencies as a whole. You already mentioned earlier, just the critical need for more coordination that you have to try to bring you know some sense of of order or predictability to the flow of aid and assistance to the assessment process, you need that sort of order and transparency to how you're operating in order to help these populations know where to go, who to tell what they need, and then how to Get it. And you know, so, so you need to bring that sort of consistency to those efforts. And it's so easy. The military, if nothing else, are masters at controlling information flow and pitting, you know, organizations off against one another and so. So so anytime you're going into an effort like this, where you understand that you know the at least one of the main authorities that you're going to have to deal with is an adversary, and treats you as an adversary, you have to be fully aware of that and then do everything you can To try and, you know, mitigate the impacts of being forced to deal with them. What I really, you know, am at least heartened by so far is it does appear that the flow of particularly external senior officials that have come into the country have done so and and communicated very closely with the resident coordinator, humanitarian coordinator on the ground, and the UN country team and humanitarian country teams. So there is this sharing of information. There is a listening process and an adapting process according to the circumstances, and that is an effort that you can't take for granted. Sadly, it doesn't always work that way, precisely because the military is restricting where people go, what they can bring, what they can deliver, how they operate. So you know, it's, it's, it's even more critical in those sorts of circumstances that this kind of coordination be part of that, and that, of course, a key aspect of that listening process is knowing what messages have been passed to the military, how they've reacted, and what more needs to be said, Where to apply pressure is, is very important and and now I think that the the last part of all of this will be how then external political pressure is applied to try and get the military to ease up on the restrictions, And so the aid gets to where it's needed most. And so that's a part of the process that I think, I think cannot be underestimated and and that will need much greater attention in the days and weeks to come.
Host 34:54
That is certainly very challenging when the military itself is not to incentivize to want. To have the aid reach the people who, as has been documented thoroughly until now, they see as their enemy. They see the people, largely in their country, as the enemy. They are the occupying force. So why would you want to bring aid to the enemy? And that brings up this question of ceasefire. And you referenced how there is a kind of fantasy ceasefire in place. It, there are multiple reports of the violations, but this by the military, but this, this the ceasefire declaration as it is, at least stands there and and is does have an expiration date that's coming soon? Do you? Do you hold any any hope or or see any priority for a renewed ceasefire, for for trying to renew this current one, or trying to negotiate other ceasefires in place, or because the military is proven itself this time and so many times is unreliable for these is there, is there really any point to it?
James Rodehaver 36:05
Well, I think that there's always a point to it, because at some point and in some way, this crisis will eventually end. And the question is, how can it end in a way that is better for the people of Myanmar and and that's why you need a concerted and organized political push on the part of the United Nations, hopefully working in concert with ASEAN to try to formalize some of these ceasefires so that relief can be given to the people that need it most. My one of the greatest concerns of this entire situation is, as I mentioned earlier, is this military push that you see on the ground that is not eased up even after the earthquake hit, within minutes of the earthquake hitting. And that's because I think the military sees this as an opportunity that the suffering that is occurring in areas outside their control, they see that as an accelerant of the breaking of the resistance, of the willingness of the people to continue supporting armed groups and people's defense forces. And it's it's such a cynical, awful way to look at the situation, but I think it's quite clear that they do view it that way. And just like I also think that they view launching these attacks as a way to also not have to admit how badly they were hurt by the impacts of the earthquake in napidal. And so I think that these offensives are serving those sort of dual purposes, and they know that the vast majority of areas where they are launching attacks are areas where they've cut off communications, they've cut off the internet access, they've cut off the mobile data systems, so you're not giving the coverage. You're not getting the people calling into media. You're not getting the connections between the people in need with the humanitarians that need information of what's happening in those areas, so they control all the the cards when it comes to the information flow coming out of those areas, and so they feel that they can launch these attacks with impunity, that no one's going to find out just how bad, badly that they are impacting the situation on the ground by launching air strikes or sending drones or these para motors over some of the the impacted sites, or in or in other parts of the country, they don't have to worry about it because, you know, there's, there's no information coming out of those areas anyway, so that that is sort of the the situation that we see ourselves In, that they feel that they have sort of carte blanche to say, on the one hand, we have a cease fire in place, but number two, we are not really under any obligation to honor it, because no one will really find out what we're doing and that we're not honoring the cease fire and and that is, in the end, one of the real dangers, but that's why I think it's very important that these violations of their own ceasefire be called out, and that a real push is made, as I say, by the UN by ASEAN and other influential states to put a pause on this, to allow the aid to get to People. There has to be this sort of crisis is should be an opportunity to de escalate. It should present an opportunity to actually form the foundations of common ground to start some sort of political dialog. And that that that should be the. Opportunity that a crisis like this that but a new crisis, or a new element to the crisis like this would present. But that's also why I think it was a dreadful mistake that min Aung Lang was invited to Bangkok last week and was actually permitted to travel to Bangkok and glad hand and and and meet as if he's some sort of credible leader, when, sadly, the military has shown that it's not a credible actor or negotiating partner on any level.
Host 40:35
Then the million dollar question is, why do you think it is that there has not been this regional response that is so needed and so obvious for a crisis in this juncture.
James Rodehaver 40:49
I think that people again, it comes back to how do people operate, and why has The regional response been so fragmented and so disorganized to date, it's because people, I think, understand in in the neighboring states, they understand that the military is not credible, I think they and that certainly It's not legitimate. They understand that the people are fully against against them, and so as a result, you know, ASEAN has had unprecedented restrictions on the ability of Myanmar to participate, at least the Myanmar military, to represent Myanmar, and then to participate in senior level meetings for the last four years, and because they haven't been living up to the commitments they made at the time of the crisis, when the crisis began in April 2021 the five point consensus and the senior leaders meeting at the time, But they still don't know what to do in absence of a state or of a representative of the state in their process. They they they're used to working with members on a basis of consensus, on a basis of cooperation, on a basis of collaborative collaboration, and if they don't have that natural actor there to deal with, I think that they're a bit lost. They they don't really know how to proceed. And that's where, frankly, the inability of the resistance to the military to put forward a united front and and to really come together and coalesce around sort of a common sort of political strategy or political representation is so damaging and is so damning to what they are trying to achieve. It's you know that they're supposed to be there to try and provide a voice to the people in the areas that they operate. And by not presenting a sort of a united front and a common strategic approach to international mechanisms and and to sort of political advocacy, they've greatly weakened their ability to to really exacerbate that, the illegitimacy of the military. So until there is sort of a political platform now that brings all actors to the table, there's not really going to be an opportunity to showcase the variety and scope and scale of the resistance to the military in a way that has, I think, real, tangible and impact, as far as actors like ASEAN are concerned. So that's why I think that would be incredibly useful at this time to try and make a push to create a political platform or process where you know that the resistance to the military would have taught a chance, at least another chance, to coalesce around sort of the need for a common humanitarian response to this earthquake and to the wider impacts of of conflict.
Host 44:37
How do you see something like that happen logistically, in terms of how to even get those actors to whatever forum that was safely something as mundane as that to who would be sponsoring it, who would be attending and it would be speaking to, in many cases, in this Myanmar K so many interviews that we've done in the past years, so many. Answers that we get are like a snake biting its tail of everyone looking in another direction to see what those guys or those international regional organizations are doing and deferring to that precedent, which then nothing happens, or the status quo happens of the military just kind of being filling the vacuum, as you say. And so this idea, it's a good idea. I think it, I think it has legs. But how, how would something like that? How do you envision something like that even coming about, practically?
James Rodehaver 45:35
Well, there are certain prerequisites that have to be fulfilled, and that's, of course, you know, a sort of a finding areas of common ground, so that there, there is some sort of agreement to start having discussions. It meet, you know, whether it's in, you know, proximity, or, you know, in parallel with one another, to having actual political discussions and negotiation around some commonly agreed concepts. And of course, to do that, you're you're going to have to have all the different actors at the table recognize that there is a need to de escalate, and that's going to be the first big thing to overcome, because I think that that you still have several actors who do not think that this is the right time to de escalate and and to to stop fighting there. There is not a sufficient degree of exhaustion, I think, on the part of the armed groups and and it's and that's quite tragic, because I think that you do see that growing sense of exhaustion and the growing lack of resilience on the part of the people. And you know, in communities throughout the country, you know we are hearing, of course, that people have been sacrificing for a very long time, and the collapse of the the economy in the country, the absolute abysmal shepherding of of the public institutions and economic institutions of the country, by the military has really, you know, that's had an enormous impact on the resiliency of local communities. Commerce has has collapsed. The value of the chart has, has suffered greatly, the availability of goods, the rising inflation, it's, it's been absolutely appalling, and the ability of people to to adapt and to continue surviving in those circumstances has been extremely difficult. And so they, I think you see that the people, they are ready to for leadership. They're, they're, they're they're, look, they're ready for some sort of, you know, at least consideration of compromise, just so that they get some relief and and they've sacrificed so much to get their democracy back, I think it's, it'll be quite tragic if more efforts are not made to try and bring those armed groups to the table and to really get them to see that, no, this is the time to de escalate, to take a step back, to try to see, you know, how this crisis can be resolved in a in a political way, and not on the battlefield, that you're not going to be able to kill your way out of this crisis. And, and that's that's got to be a sort of a but that has to be a resolution or a common ground or analytical principle that all the different armed groups actually recognize. And, and then, of course, once you actually have that sort of meeting of minds around the need to de escalate, it's, it's finding areas where, where, where you can actually trust one another to de escalate. And that's going to be the second major challenge of any process, is actually finding a basis for the armed groups to actually be able to trust what the military agrees to. Because, as I say, they have shown time and time again that cease fires mean nothing to them, but they are not a credible interlocutor. And so there will have to be Confidence Building Measures. You know, there will be, have to be areas of where Common Ground is established, so that people actually trust one another enough to start talking to one another, and until you actually build that confidence, then you're not going to have people sitting around a common table or even in adjacent rooms willing to speak at one another, let alone talk to. One another. So it will be a very long process. It's going to take some very creative, creative solutions. And of course, as you also mentioned before, it's going to take some states in the area that are able to provide some sort of security guarantee so that talks can take place in an environment that's conducive to discussion and in a secure way, and and that that that anything agreed in a conference room or on paper is then able to be enforced on the ground.
Host 50:41
And that's certainly a tall order for a military government that is regarded neither as a military or a government, but something more akin to, as a recent guest, Mimi win Byrd said, a an organized crime syndicate this. This certainly makes it more challenging to say the least. I want to go back to one thing you referenced a little bit ago. You were talking about the type of attacks that the military was continuing on the people, especially in the sagain region, that that those, those that survived the earthquake now being hit by these, this range of military attacks. And you talked about drone attacks, which I think are known by most people, but you also talked about a particularly horrific style of assault the military has been waging. Paramotor I believe, is the term that it's called. Can you share what this is, when it came about, and where it's derived from?
James Rodehaver 51:37
Well, sure, to the extent that I know paramotors are essentially they. It's a a form of assisted flight, usually inviting, involving a person utilizing a hang glider or some other form of gliding apparatus, with the help of a small motor that they either that is part of a device that they are sitting on and strapped to, or that is worn like a backpack that is strapped to the back of their body, which then helps propel them and gives them the ability to fly over long distances. And so it's a form of individual flight that is virtually silent, that can be done at higher altitudes, so it's very hard to spot and to target an individual from the ground whenever they're flying in this way, and essentially, the military has been using these types of individuals flying with these hang glider type devices in order to fly over civilian areas, villages or small towns, and then to drop handheld munitions, so essentially just dropping hand grenades, or, you know, small bombs by hand onto unsuspecting targets below. And these, these attacks have been occurring now rather steadily. I think the first ones were began last either October or November, and they've been slowly growing, including, you know, several paramotor attacks that have occurred just in the last nine days since the the earthquake and and that includes all in areas where you know, rescue, search and rescue operations were occurring whenever the paramotor operator flew over and dropped munitions. These this entire as I understand it, this tactic sort of began in different it was first attempted in different states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and at one point, I think it was, it was even attempted by by some militants in the Middle East as a way of conducting combat, and for one reason or another, it was not found to be a particularly effective means of of waging combat. But right now, in the areas where paramotors have have have attacked, as I say, because they've been silent, because they've been almost exclusively targeting civilian areas where you don't have a lot of weapons at the disposal of people to try and and fire back on on these operators, they've been very effective at inflicting fear and terror in the local population. I think there. Only been two instances, or maybe only one instance, of a paramotor actually being shot down, but it's rather insidious way of attacking. And it's also because it's a single person flying over, they are very aware of what they're flying over, and so they're very aware of because that is a lower speed that they're flying, especially compared to a jet fighter, it's a lower altitude that they're flying. So they are fully aware that they are targeting civilians.
Host 55:37
Good gracious, just you know, when I first heard about it this just like it was sort of some twisted, demonic cartoon that was was just impossible to even conjure up. Is this reality and and as we're focusing on the military and their capabilities, you you mentioned that one of your guesses as to why the military has been so active in assaults among many also, because that's what this military does, is they just attack their own civilians. But you also wager to guess that they could be covering for whatever kind of destruction happened in naipa as a result of the earthquake. And so have there been any reports or insights into how bad military operations in napida as well as ba go and make Tila and other places where we know that there's, there's, there's, there's important military operations. Do we have any sense of to what degree they have been impacted?
James Rodehaver 56:34
Well, well, just. But you know, anecdotally, you know, we of course, have heard about the damage that was done to several government buildings and and airports, and we so you assume that at least some infrastructural damage were done to different air bases or or military sites and locations, to barracks or hangars or or air traffic control towers or facilities, you have to think that those were impacted the degree to which they have been, I really don't know. But I I would think at least that if you have taken, you know major, you know, major damage or major hits, one way to cover that up would be to try to show that, oh no, we're still fully operational, and we're still fully willing to launch a wide variety of attacks. And because in the past days, we've seen really the full range of the full arsenal of the military being deployed, jet fighters, as I said, paramotors, drones, helicopter gunships, artillery batteries, the whole lot of their heavy weaponry has been on display at the same time. You've had several areas where troops on the ground have gone out, have raided villages. They have at least reportedly done some, you know, forcible recruitment. But then they've also been burning villages, and so, you know, they really are, you know, trying to show, I think, that their full range of their ability to operate is still, you know, very much active and on the table. So it's you know, and for that reason, you know, it's very hard to know just how badly they were hurt or impacted by by the earthquake.
Host 58:34
Thank you for that, and thank you for spending this hour with us today. I know how busy your schedule must be at this time. The last question I'd like to leave you with is looking at from the side of the international community. And of course, you know, there have been extensive cuts on the US side, USAID as a whole other thing, and and US contributions towards this sort of thing, the humanitarian aid and and support that is necessary. The recent report that I saw is that they were targeting $1.1 billion in aid to be able to to bring in to support those survivors and build up the communities. I mean, that's, I think any listener by now, following through, would say that's, of course, dependent on all kinds of crazy factors that you don't find in normal disaster zones, as normal as any disaster zone can be. But just staying on the international side, there have been gaps in being able to find the adequate funding that one would like, and that's necessary, in this case, for being able to provide not just immediate support, but different phase support over time, regardless of of the dynamics of getting that in and working in the right places. And so what are your thoughts on those funding gaps that exist now? And How hopeful are you that the. Those targets that are being identified can actually be reached.
James Rodehaver 1:00:05
Well, I'm not hopeful, I guess, about the funding targets, because we've seen such a an inability of Myanmar to generate the attention, either financial attention or political attention, that it's needed now for several years, and a big part of that has been because a lot of the humanitarian appeals, they are based on people in need and what those needs are and where the need is greatest, particularly in conflict affected areas, but then those areas are the ones that have been most gravely and and and assiduously restricted by by the military. And so you have this rather perverse situation where you have close to 20 million people in need. But even at the best target that the UN could set, or the humanitarians could set, was to try and reach a little over 6 million people, most in need. Now it's incredibly difficult to see, even under ideal circumstances, how, you know, act, how, how the humanitarians could have accessed those 6 million people, even if they had the funds or the commodities, the supplies on hand to to to service those 6 million people most in need, as those initially assessed, and so if you can't even access the number of people whose needs you've assessed and are trying to get support to, it's hard then to make a case to fully fund, you know, those efforts, because you you don't want aid and assistance wasted. You don't want to take a risk that some of those funds end up, you know, going to assist the people who essentially would would help legitimize the military, because the military would be controlling that access and the distribution of some of those, of some of that assistance, you don't, you don't want to take a chance that that could happen. So I think that it's there are so many ways where you can make a case that, you know, the the circumstances on the ground are not there to deliver the full amount that is needed. Now, that said, you know, all of these initial appeals at least, that were made, you know, back at the end of last year, whenever the funding crisis really was had not yet the full extent of the funding crisis was not yet known. You did not yet know, of course, about the earthquake. You did not know about the dismantling of USAID, the potential impact of the tangerine tariffs. You just didn't really realize the full extent to which the sort of the global financial charity, spirit of global financial charity would be drying up. And so I hope very much that that perhaps, if more information would get out about the extent of this crisis and of the need in areas outside the military control, would get would be, first of all, if more information could be gathered and shared globally, that that would then lead to the to a growing spirit of okay, look, we need to push, not just to make sure that humanitarian humanitarian agencies get everything that they are asking for, but there has to be an absolute concerted international political push to get that aid to the people that need it, whether that be a push in the Security Council to pass a new resolution on Myanmar that would use as a point of common interest among all the states to help the people impacted by the earthquake, so that they would approve cross border, cross line humanitarian assistance mandate, it through a Security Council resolution that could be one way, perhaps, that you could create a new political dynamic as well, as you know, provide the basis for creating a new financial dynamic for contribution. Actions and to fully fund the humanitarian effort. I think that that's what is needed most right now, is the ability to show that there are ways, and that there is an effort and an ability to reach those people in need and and then hopefully the funding will follow if, if you actually have that ability to show that if we get the funding, we can reach the people that need it.
Host 1:05:28
If I could just follow up on that last point, I what you just said now, and I realize there's threads of this throughout this whole conversation. There's so much that you're pointing to that's about creating a new narrative. Of course, this new narrative filled with facts and figures and anecdotes that are not usually reported, being able to identify gaps in the existing reporting, being able to widen the window of interest beyond the 15 minutes before the world turns away, essentially being able to tell the story in a different way, and to do it in such a way that that enforces a political will to be able to act in ways that are very achievable and possible, and require just a little bit of concerted effort to be able to to take those actions which will have the immediate effect that there, There are things, there are situations on the ground with the way that local groups are able to distribute aid and are able to help each other that are that stand out as being when looking at other conflict zones and other natural disaster natural disaster areas, that there is an achievable way if the international community can just get over a certain kind of hump and and take that step and and get there that to get that action predicated on that action is this sense of this new narrative and and this new push for information and and story lines. And so the obvious question that brings again, is, how do you do it, or what is that storyline? Or what is the way to be able to tell this the same old thing in a different way, in a different way that's actually more reflective of the accuracy and the truth on the ground than how it's being reported previously. So it's not like we're trying to fabricate or tell a nice story, to have some as means to get to the ends that we desire, but rather to to have a more accurate rendering of of the situation, so that people are better informed, and those stakeholders that are are in key positions With that better information, they're able to make better decisions. And so do you have any ideas about how that new narrative communication stories get, that process of bringing them out there and having them land where they're supposed to land?
James Rodehaver 1:07:55
Well, I mean, that's a very big question you just asked, and I and I have to say that to me, I guess I'm still enough of a an idealist I like to think of myself, I guess, as a pragmatic idealist, which, you know, I know those two terms don't often go together. But to me, I I think that it, it's not necessarily a complicated story to tell, but it is a story where you need a variety of facts and figures from several sectors to tell the story in full. And that is the story of this crisis, and particularly the crisis at this moment of emergency. And I think that, at least I would like to think that if you laid bare all of the different ways in which the Myanmar military has constructed a military strategy around the concept of impeding humanitarian service delivery, making just the flow of the most basic commodities necessary to preserve Life to a population, population in urgent need, particularly after an earthquake that that would not wake up a certain segment of the international community that's been sleeping for a very long time that's wanted to turn away and say, if we are not in agreement with the politics of a certain set of actors, we will not countenance any facts or figures about the plight that the those people are suffering, that if you could tell the full story, that that even those people that have willfully turn. Away, or have slept through this crisis, that even they would agree that no, this is simply unacceptable. It's not desirable for something like this to happen in Myanmar. It's certainly not something that we would ever want to see happen in our own countries. So we have to set an example here. There has to be a set of common principles under which the international community operates to say, this is just too much. This is a bridge too far. This is a step too far. There is a line that's been crossed that is fundamentally against the idea of basic common humanity, and we have to address it. We have to address it politically. We have to mandate the ability to get access for humanitarians. We have to mandate the ability of those humanitarians to operate freely and unfetteredly in these areas and and lastly, we have to then fund their ability to provide that aid and assistance to these poor people that just desperately, desperately need help. And I would just like to think if that story could be told, if we could show the variety of ways that these insidious steps have been taken to limit or block the ability of humanitarians to operate that that might be, I think, frankly, it would shock a lot of people and I and in certain way, it's an indictment of organizations like my own, our inability to tell That story with sufficient level of urgency, gravity or clarity to really provide that shock to wake people up?
Host 1:11:50
Well, we're here trying to tell it. We're here in terms of our platform and in terms of this specific conversation that we're having here today. We're here for the long run, with guests that come on and listeners that take it on. And hope to see other types of innovative platforms and storytelling different than our own, that can can take their own stab at it, as well as many local groups that are on the ground working in their local communities, doing incredibly unsung tasks that are not being amplified the way they should be, and hope that those stories get out more. And with what you just said, I would like to close by a lot of this conversation has really been a zooming out, kind of looking at the international scope of the situation or the disaster or the response or military or relations or whatnot. And I'd like to close on a more personal framing, and that's just in prompting you that we do have a number of listeners that are tuning in from inside Myanmar, as far as our analytics show, and anecdotally, we've certainly heard about a wide number of the Diaspora that are listening as well.
James Rodehaver 1:13:00
And I'm grateful for a chance to speak to any of those people that would be listening because their courage and and an unflappable will to keep on resisting tyranny, their their ability to keep functioning in a in a in a very practical manner, to to continue helping people who are far worse off than themselves, has been inspirational. It's been a reason to keep going, despite the numerous frustrations that me and my team have faced, the difficulties we've had to prove that some of the worst violations have been occurring. It's their example that has kept us motivated and have kept us, you know, passionately focused on, on trying to to to weave together the evidence necessary to tell a coherent and compelling story about Myanmar. And because we want to amplify their efforts, we want to amplify their voices, we want to do this for them, because right now that's the worst part of the lack of international political attention on Myanmar. It's the the the intentional deafness that some people have had, or the inability of some to listen to the voices of Myanmar's people and what they want and what they demand, and those voices should be listened to. They must be listened to if this crisis is ever going to be resolved. So I just want to I. I really say how humbling it is to be faced with their example, and just the enormous inspiration I take from the example that they've set.
Host 1:15:18
Thank you for staying with us for the duration of this interview in a world where Myanmar's crisis has largely faded from the headlines, critical voices and perspectives are being left unheard, and that is where we hope to come in. Through this humble platform, we're trying to provide something unique, an opportunity to share important experiences, insights, struggles and perspectives in depth and in a way that few other media sources offer. Our content not only keeps the sputtering global conversation about Myanmar alive, but it also brings much needed attention to those now fighting for their very freedom and dignity. So if you value this work and the perspectives we're offering. Please consider supporting us. Your contributions help us to continue to amplify these voices that matter and provide the world with the coverage of Myanmar that it So deserves. Visit insightmyanmar.org/donation to stand with us.