Transcript: Episode #346: Burn After Reforming
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 00:18
Greetings to you all. I like to think of Insight Myanmar podcast as a community platform. This community includes everyone behind the production, as well as the incredible guests we welcome on, and also encompasses the 10s of 1000s of listeners like yourself tuning in from all around the world. In essence, this production is really a conversation that we're all part of. So whether we're the ones who happen to be doing the talking, listening, asking questions or just reflecting, we hope that this community feel can foster deeper understanding, shared learning and meaningful connections all centered around the stories and experiences of our guests, and that begins with the conversation coming up right now. So thank you for joining us for what's ahead.
Host 01:43
it. Hello listeners, this is itan Zain. I will be your host for today's episode on inside Myanmar podcast today we have Mark famuna and I briefly talked to Mark when I in my past life as a journalist for Voice of America, but that was years ago, and then we talked about the coup and also sanctions from US and UK and different statements. But this episode is you know more than that, and we will talk more about it later. But before jumping into your role as director for Burma campaign UK Mark, I want to ask you, how did it all begin?
Mark Farmaner 03:15
Well, I became aware of the situation in in Burma around the same time, many people around the world did, which was the coup in 1988 at the time, I was involved in the anti apartheidcampaign, there was a picket outside the South African Embassy in Trafalgar Square, London for the freedom of Nelson Mandela, the leader of the democracy movement there. And I remember we were sitting one morning. We used to be there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So we were sat there one morning after a freezing cold overnight shift, even though it was August and it shouldn't have been and and we were reading the newspaper about the fact that the uprising in Burma had brought down the military there, the military regime had collapsed. And so this gave us hope. This gave us hope that something similar could happen in South Africa. The regime there could could fall. Obviously, that's not what happened. There was another military regime replaced the old one in Burma and and it was in South Africa, where, shortly afterwards, there was dramatic change and democracy finally arrived. So I followed Burma in the news when it was in the news ever since. And then I was volunteering at a development agency, Christian Aid in the late 1990s and the head of the campaign section there was the John Jackson, the co founder of BOMA Action Group, as it was called then, and he asked me to start volunteering. So I began volunteering, I think, in 1998 And then moved to work campaign UK in 2001 so it started.
Host 05:05
You've, I guess you've seen more than one coup in Myanmar.
Mark Farmaner 05:12
Yes, unfortunately, yes.
Host 05:15
The reality of it is that it has way too many coups in Myanmar that we've experienced. And you know, how do you feel about that?
Mark Farmaner 05:24
Well, the way we describe it now, because, you know, a lot of Burma campaign, UK our audience, our job is to educate the international community, to influence the international community. And so you know, when you have these narratives that the military was reforming, or had reformed, or is going to reform, or there's reformers waiting in the wings. We, we have to keep reminding them that they, you know, they keep having coups, and this is just the latest coup and and so we, we frame it like that. This is just the latest coup, and it's going to keep happening, and as long as the military are allowed to have any form of power or influence. It's just a question of time before there'll be another one. So you know, when we're talking to governments and they're saying, Oh, what the solution to the current crisis is dialog with the military, what they mean is compromise with the military, and that is just setting the timer to the next coup.
Host 06:24
So not a solution, right? So you think we shouldn't compromise with different governments that come up after the coups?
Mark Farmaner 06:33
Well, we talked to a lot of people in the country who, and there was a lot of people, I think, particularly in the ethnic states, who, even during the thing saying so called good times, we're seeing an increase in conflict in some areas, who weren't seeing the the benefits that some people in other parts of the country saw. Who were, you know, who were saying, you know, we we just need to get rid of the military completely. And I think a lot more people that we speak to now just say, you know, we have to remove the military. They can't have any kind of role. If there's any kind of compromise with them where they're meant to stay out of politics or or sort of have reduced power, or, you know, a slow transition, they'll just be another coup again, because that's what they keep doing. And in the current circumstances where the military are losing, you know, then dialog and a compromise is like throwing a lifeline to the military. They're in deep trouble. And if, if they keep losing territory, if, if, you know, if the current trajectory, trajectory carries on, then some sort of internationally brokered dialog and compromise will save them at a chance when people in the country have finally got a chance to get rid of them. So when, when I'm going up and down the Thai border, when I'm sneaking across the border and talking to people, you know, talking to people from London, across the country, it's a big fear of people is that they're saying to us is that they'll be forced into some kind of compromise with their oppressor, and that will throw the military a lifeline. It's so that's a message that we're passing on to governments in Europe and around the world. Is when you call for inclusive dialog, what you're saying is compromise with your oppressor again, and that's never worked, right?
Host 08:23
Yeah? Like, I mean, the coup keep happening over and over again. And what, what was your first experience working on Myanmar? Is it the 1990s the 88 coup?
Mark Farmaner 08:35
Yeah, so that's when I first became aware in the late 1990s there was the anniversary of the coup. Was the big opportunity, because Burma was not in the news at all. Most people in the UK didn't even know where Burma is. It could have been in South America for all they knew. And so the anniversary was an opportunity we would hold some kind of protest or stunt or event every year on the anniversary, designed to get the media to cover it, to get some politicians involved, and just, you know, to have a chance to get some some attention On the country, because there just was none and but there were also campaigns, particularly on gas revenue, because we could see, you know, the gas revenues that was going to come online was going to be such a lifeline for the military and enable them to scale up their military purchases, Which Yeah, we later saw with their first big jet purchases on the down payments from gas, which we can see how they've used their power since the coup against the population. So we were, there was a British company, Premier oil involved, but we were lobbying other companies as well that were involved in gas extraction to and trying to persuade governments to San. And that sector then, but we were not successful with the latest coup right now too.
Host 10:04
You know the international media attention Well, there's only so much people can care about, right? Like at the new conflict comes up, new crisis come up, and people attention span is very short, and I'm sure it's different from the 90s, when social media or media looks something a little different. I want to know, like, what kind of stunts or what kind of statements or what kind of action did get people attention at that time, and how is it different from how we're doing things now?
Mark Farmaner 10:41
Well, it was very, very little attention in the late 90s. So when we we one year, we had a parade. We hired an open top bus. We worked with members of the Burmese community in the UK and London, and we had a sort of a parade of cars led by a bus trying to get some celebrities and politicians there, so that the media would be drawn to watching that. And we went around Central London. People were leafleting to raise awareness. Another year, we kind of staged, members of the Burmese community staged a massacre, with some dressed as soldiers and some as protesters who were shot again, that was a video visual that the media were interested in. So we managed to get onto television and and some newspapers for that. But it was very hard, I think, when the two things that sort of drew international attention later on were Aung San Suu Kyi and and when we started to work much more on the British economic connections to the military, the British companies that were doing business in Burma in a way which was helping to finance the military. And you know that the high street names, the shops and other companies that had some financial link to the military, that generated a lot of media interest, and that then led to more political interest. But of course, the figurehead, Aung San Suu Kyi was, was the main attraction. She had a profile. People couldn't, never say who she was. They say, isn't there that there's that's the country, that woman, what's her name? But at least they were aware that was a starting point. And so those were the two factors that started in the early 2000s to enable us to start putting Burma up the UK and working with a network of human rights organizations across Europe and the world, then sort of pushing Burma up the political international agenda.
Host 12:51
So do you think Dao Aung San Suu Kyi still had that kind of pull from international media and attention?
Mark Farmaner 12:59
Not really. Now, in fact, it's the opposite. I think that a lot of media and celebrities, people that were supporting the situation in in Burma, the people of Burma, inspired by Aung San Suu Kyi, later felt burned by that, because of the controversy around her position on the Rohingya political prisoners remaining in jail and so and now you have a new generation of politicians who who've only known of Aung San Suu Kyi as the controversy from when, from 2012 onwards, and going to the Hague at the ICJ hearings, and don't know of her as the, you know, the hero of people of Burma, and someone who inspired people around the world by her resistance to the military. So it actually, it works the other way. Now it's, you know, we, earlier this year, we put out a media release highlighting the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi had now spent a total of 19 years in jail, and nobody was interested. So yeah, but nice, sorry, 19 years in detention overall, and it didn't get any attention at all. So yeah, that. I think, that has been made international advocacy, the damage to her reputation, her actions while she was in government have made the international advocacy a lot harder. But also, we're up against much bigger challenges now, with the situation in Ukraine and Gaza, they were always things where we were trying over the years, where we were trying to get Burma higher up the political agenda, and we were starting to get more coverage, and then there'd be an international crisis, and it sort of knocked us off. But overall, the course was that Burma was moving up the international agenda, and you saw that during the same 10 years, while you had presidents from Prime Ministers. All over the world, flocking to the countries, because, you know, the there was that big international awareness of the situation, but it's, it's very, very challenging. Now, I think also another challenge is there isn'tthe same international coordination for advocacy. There's a lot of different advocacy messages out there now there isn't there used to be much clearer coordination between Burmese communities worldwide by organizations on the Thai Burma border and the coalitions they had, the Burma campaign, UK Us campaign for Burma and others, and the big international human rights organizations, we would get clearer messages from the movement of what our key priorities should be, that we could all work on at the same time, and so international advocacy was very well coordinated. We would all work together on the same issue at the same time. We wouldn't be trying to push on too many issues at once. And so we were able to make big change. We got Moe on to the agenda of the UN Security Council against all the odds on that. And but that's what, when you had the United advocacy you can achieve. And, and there isn't that. At the moment, there isn't that. And I think part of the reason that is a lot of the civil society groups and others that used to be working on advocacy, their capacity is now soaked up by the humanitarian crisis, the situation on the ground. So we've seen a big change in that when we go and meet with organizations we've been working with supporting for more than 20 years. Their focus isn't on the international advocacy anymore, like it used to be, because the situation on the ground is so horrific, and they're dealing just struggling to do with that.
Host 16:55
Yeah. So I was born and raised in Myanmar, and I came to the United States when I just for college, right? And then I noticed the shift in how much, or how much people care about Burma. And, you know, I went to a small liberal arts college in the middle of nowhere in Virginia, and they don't know where Burma is. They're like Alabama. No, I said, you know, I'm from Burma. And slowly, there was some interest from, you know, in Burma. And also, yes, like you said, they someone somewhere knows about Aung San Suu Kyi. Isn't that the noble piece by laureate, you know, the lady. And you know, I moved to DC to work in more traditional media. And you know, those were good days, you know, 2013 2015 2016 Even so, the public opinion shift has changed on our country, and also Aung San Suu Kyi as well. And you know, working in a traditional media too, I have seen things from a different lens. And also, living in DC, people know about my country. Some of them know even more than me, you know, as when I move here. So it's so much to learn, so so many discussion to go on. And I was wondering, since you've been working, wearing many hats, you know you also work as a director for justice for Rohingya, UK. So, you know, when working in tandem with Burma issue, Rohingya issue, and also, you know, you also work at for the Karen, the foundation that you work at so many different layered issue exists in Myanmar. I know that you're well versed in it, but for somebody who's new coming into you know Myanmar sphere, wanting to learn more about it, how difficult is it to explain about it? Because I have, I have encountered so many difficult conversation on Ubers. They would be like, Oh, Myanmar. Isn't that the lady horrible? Isn't she a hero, you know, and how do you how do you navigate those questions? Since, you know, I'm sure you get that all the time, trying to tell people this is not a one sided issue.
Mark Farmaner 19:26
So it's very challenging. And so I think one of the things is the main audience for Burma campaign UK is British public, British and European politicians and governments. And it's even surprising, when you go into some foreign ministries, how little they know or understand about what's going on. And so we we have to simplify our messaging and and I think it's different now with social media, everything is out there. And. Our message sometimes, when we're messaging the British public, you know very little, and we simplify things that we then get criticized by some people from from Burma because we haven't been nuanced enough. And but you can't do that when someone barely knows where the country is. And so, yeah, we do have to sum up the situation in a way that's easy to understand, but at the same time, try, and we, we always, always try to get people to understand it's not just about there is good guy, Aung San, Suu Kyi, bad guy, Burmese, military and and that's it, and that it's, you know, it's a lot more complex than that. And I suppose one way we we try to describe it to people, is to say the the challenge is, you know, different visions of what Burma is. Is Burma a sort of a Burma, Buddhist country with minorities, or is it a multi ethnic, multi religious country, and where you lead on either of those sort of can you can tell you where the politics are coming from. So I think the Burma is a multi ethnic, multi religious country, and but a lot of people don't see it as that. And I think, yeah, when I met with Aung San Suu Kyi and discussed with her, I certainly got the impression from her, she sees it Burma as a Burma, Buddhist country with minorities, and that focus, and then that shapes everything that she then her whole approach and other people's approach is shaped from that starting point.
Host 21:42
When did you meet her? Is it before, after the ICJ?
Mark Farmaner 21:47
So in 2012 I had three, three meetings with her in 2012
Host 21:54
and so that's when she said, think that it is more majority with other ethnic minorities.
Mark Farmaner 22:02
So it was when we were talking to her about, so when we discuss, I'd just been to Liza and MA J Aung, I and I've been, you've by then, you know, I had many years. I've been making trips to the Thai Burma border and across the border into San state, kn state, to the border with khreni states, and across the border from China into Khin state, and been meeting IDPs, people who have been fleeing military attacks. And what struck me about, you know, in the visit in early 2012 is the intensity. It's usually that a lot of IDPs that you meet, they they heard fighting was happening, they were near it, and they ran away first and could but in 2012 people didn't have that chance. Or, you know, much larger proportion of the IDPs that I met and spoke with had directly witnessed and experienced human rights violations. It was much more intense. And I was trying to explain that to Aung San Suu Kyi, but she cut me off in saying, Oh, they're all as bad as each other, basically, which I was quite surprised at so then when we tried to sort of follow up on that a bit, that's when I did understand that, yeah, she her perception of the country is as a BA Mar Buddhist country with minorities, and not the other way around. And that was clearly informing. So when she was talking about the relationships with ethnic people. She She said, Oh, we have very good relationships with ethnic political parties. They always do what we want. And that's how she she saw it, the relationship as one where they did what she wanted them to do. And yeah, so yeah, in that meeting, yeah, there were a few things she said then, when we were concerned, because the root cause of the problem is, you know, the the original coup in 62 happened relating to concerns about devolution that the military had and and that, you know, addressing The whole crisis in the country, you have to address the legitimate concerns and experiences that ethnic people have had at the hands of central governments and the military, not just the military, but central governments as well, and the discrimination they faced. And yeah, in our discussions with her, we didn't feel that she really understood that at all. She didn't get it, and she didn't want to sort of hear much about it either, right?
Host 24:45
So do you think she was working in the direction that you would have wanted to go if her government still stand today, and the coup didn't happen with me, she had planned. You know, she made promises in campaign, campaigning for. Her new election that we all voted for and that the vote doesn't count, right? Like so if our votes counted and her plan worked, and you think it is part of her plan to make it a federal country.
Mark Farmaner 25:16
Well, that's what she was saying. And but the ethnic political leaders we were talking to was say it was still a very much a top down approach that, I think, you know, it was revealing on, I think it was a trip to Sweden when she she complained to think politicians there, that ethnic political leaders seem to think that this is some kind of negotiation. You she wanted to impose her solution, you know, the kind of federalism that she wanted, she, that's what she wanted to impose. And she, that's what she said to them, is they seem to think it's some kind of negotiation, which it was, but that's not how she was perceiving it so and she she didn't deliver on a lot of those things, and there was a lot of frustration from ethnic politicians because of it, and they did feel that she, yeah, she she, she wasn't, she didn't, again, that She didn't really understand their situation and their experience and what they'd been through so and we were encouraging her, for example, to go to the IDP camps in November 2012 and met her then and go to the IDP camps, where this place Rohingya were, and to to see for herself what's going On and the situation there, which she refused to do.
Host 26:43
Yeah, right now, there's about a million or more Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar, right? That's the largest refugee camp. And, you know, we also hear, well, until recently, when I was covering stories, I seen a lot of stories on how Rohingya population is trying to get out of the refugee camps, because their entire livelihood sometimes, you know, some kids were born there, they were raised there, and there's no real infrastructure on ways to make money. And, you know, they try to go to a third country and get a lot of organization, a lot of countries are helping it, including humanitarian aids from US and UK. You know, the human, humanitarian foreign aid kind of view from United States is shaky, to say the least, right? The the current Trump administration has started seeing that as unnecessary spending, which it should be reduced or cut or, you know, just trim the fat and have you so you work in UK. Has the UK Government have similar ideas, because I see that globally, lot of leaders are starting to put, quote, unquote, their country first.
Mark Farmaner 28:13
The UK already cut. They massively in 2021, and that sort of overall aid international aid budget led to a 73% cut in UK aid to Rohingya and the refugee camps and to Burma as a whole. And I think there, but there was a pattern as well, because the international aid budgets for Burma and Myanmar had grown and because they said, Oh, we're supporting a transition to democracy. But a lot of that was not on the humanitarian crisis. This were IDPs and refugees. It was development assistance working sort of through and with the government. And after the coup in 2021they took the opportunity to just cut that development assistance. They didn't switch it over. Despite this massively increasing humanitarian need. They just cut the aid budget and and that, you know, also coincided it with the UK, with significant budget cuts as well. So we saw the EU, Germany, UK, other countries will all reduce their overall aid budget to Burma because they didn'tswitch development assistance over to humanitarian assistance, because they all stopped the development assistance once the COVID happened. And so we've been lobbying in the UK to get them to increase the budget, and they have started to increase the budget again, but now the new labor government here has announced again, massive cuts to the overall a budget, and we're lobbying now that that Burma should be protected from those cuts because of the exceptional multiple crises hitting the country at the same time. So. Um, it looks like this year's financial budget, hopefully, you know, that will be okay, but it's when the big cuts come in the next financial year, in April next year. Then that's when we've going to have, you know, to see what actually happens. We'll be doing everything we can to lobby the British government not to do that, but, but you can see the disaster of it is, is that, you know, the Burmese military are deliberately creating a humanitarian crisis. They've always done that. They've done that for decades in ethnic states. They're doing it across the country now because it soaks up the capacity of the resistance movement, the democracy movement, the human rights activists. And that's what you know I was saying earlier, the, you know, the human rights activists, who used to be focused on a lot of international advocacy, and now, you know their focus is mainly on responding to the humanitarian crisis and and so when you have these cuts in international aid, then that is going to benefit the Burmese military, because it means that the resistance is weakened and more the focus and resources are taken up dealing with the humanitarian crisis. So yeah, the US aid cuts, the UK aid cuts. That's something that you know Burmese military will be celebrating. And we did see Burmese military social media accounts, you know, celebrating when the US cut VOA funding, when the US cut US aid funding, they, you know, they were gloating about it on on social media, on their sort of proxy, soft pocket channels and others, because it's, it's good news for them, and it couldn't come at a worse time. Because, you know, I think one interesting thing, things are so awful in the country at the moment, but then when I visit the cross border trip, or trips to the border, there is, there's more hope than before as well, because people have worn down. They're desperate. The situation is awful. They're exhausted, but there is also hope. And people are talking about a future without the Burmese military, and people think they're, you know, that there is an actual chance of that happening now for the first time in decades.
Host 32:17
And how do you how do they express that? You know, did you meet people who like, how are they more hopeful than before? I mean, you know it is, it is quite, you know, it's not double by me. It's more than that. There's like so many, one crisis after another, hitting Myanmar, you know the earthquake, flood, coup, you know another one. So that is, you know, we are being labeled as resilient, you know, by these people are so resilient, and also they are, you know, very optimistic, right? So I, I wasn't there in the border, but you've met a lot of people, and I want to know how they express that, that they feel more hopeful than before.
Mark Farmaner 33:01
Well, I think the so two first time I really noticed that two years ago, going up and down the border, meeting with a lot of people, and I've been going to the sort of Thai Burma border crossing from China into kitchen state for 20 years, and, you know, two years ago, the every, every single meeting, and it was the first time that had ever happened in 20 years, every single meeting, people were talking about the future without the military, after the military, what they wanted to do, the problems that they would face After the military. And that had never, I don't think that had ever come up apart from formal meetings about a new constitution and things that used to take place in a more academic way. It never happened before. They've never been there where everyone was talking about what would replace the military, whether it was what we're going to do in here any state, what we're going to do in Saga, and what we're going to do in in Karen state, what would be in sort of government, moving back to Yangon, and what would happen there. That's what people were all talking about, the future and hope so, and which I'd never experienced before, and so, but now you know more recently, yeah, that hope is still there. But, you know, it's taking longer than people hoped, the progress that people hoped they would be making in taking more territory, China's intervention and sort of more forceful support for the military now compared to what was there so spirit, I wouldn't say that there is spirits are high, or people are really optimistic, but I still there is still that hope. There is that feeling that there is a chance of getting rid of the military when I'm talking to people, which, you know, people didn'treally talk about before.
Host 34:56
So, yeah, like at the beginning, you said that, you know, there is no. Role for a military, and there's no compromise compromising with the oppressor, right? So the future that we're so looking forward without the military, what does it look like, and what does it take for us to get there?
Mark Farmaner 35:15
I think so this is one of the other challenges now, because, you know, you have diplomats who say, Oh, they almost blame people in the country. They're saying, oh, you should be united. When political forces in their own country are not united. They might not be fighting, but they're not united. And you can see division, internal division, growing across the world now. So, but there seems to be an expectation that somehow all the diverse people of the country, with all the WHO with different experiences different challenges, should all unite under one common leader or authority to resist the military together, which is just not that demonstrates a real lack of understanding of how the country works. And so it's not realistic, and it's totally unrealistic and but also I think it's missing the point, because I think we always used to joke about how many different coalitions and organizations they were, and in fact, when I joined Burma campaign UK. There was one member of the Burmese community in London said to me, if you unders, if you want to understand my country, you have to understand this joke. You know, what do you get if you put two Burmese people in a room for an hour, three organizations, and when I didn't understand that at all, but, um, but there were all these coalitions, these formal coalitions of civil society, of ethnic armed organizations, and multiple ones and and there still are some on paper. But actually what you've seen now is that people are all working together without these formal structures, and you've got different ethnic armed organizations, revolutionary organizations, sending their forces to neighboring states or states further away to help them at a critical moment when they're trying to defend something or take something, you know, they're, they're just, they're calling each other up on signal. They're not sitting around with a committee and a sub committee and you know. And they're actually, you know, so there is a remarkable amount of communication, coordination, information sharing going on behind the scenes, between the different ethnic revolutionary and armed organizations and and with PDFs and others as well, and with different civil society organizations. And we're, we're trying to explain to governments, and some of them are starting to get it that there isn't going to be if the military are just reduced to a rump area of the country, or if the military are defeated or collapsed, whatever happens, the replacement isn't going to be a strong central government with authority all over the country. You're going to have multiple administrations all over the country, and you're going to have to deal with those multiple administrations for economically, for humanitarian assistance and and those administrations at the beginning are not going to cede any power to any central government, and it obviously at later stage they will need to to for investment, for infrastructure, energy, the different things that will be needed. But you know, when you've had people who've been fighting for their land, their state, their resources for decades, against the Burmese military, and you know, for some of them, right the way through the so called good days of the reform process of San and the Aung San Suu Kyi government, the attacks never stopped, the army never left their streets. And so they're not going to just hand that over to an NLD and nug or any other kind of central government there. They're going to keep that and and they're going to run it themselves, but and they will opt in. So it's going to be rather than the central government ceding power or saying, you can have this, or you can have that, which coming back to talking about Aung San Suu Kyi approach, that was very much her approach, which caused a lot of resentment among Different ethnic political and armed leaders. The you know the you can see that the tables have turned in a way now, and is some of these ethnic armed organizations. They can set their own terms, and they will be the ones choosing how much any central government can or can't be involved in the affairs of their state and, and, but that doesn't, you know, it doesn't mean there's going to be war, autism, Burma will be a failed state, you know, or these kind of things that some of the international community are afraid of, because there will be multiple administrations. There are going to be flash points and clashes between some of them over territory and resources and. There's going to be a tough time. It's going to be really, really difficult for a long time. But that's the legacy that you've got from these decades of military war, of them playing divide and rule and, you know, and the policies of central governments as well. I think we need to get the international community to understand that you can't expect out of the unique situation in the country, some stable central government to sort of magically appear, or all the people of the country magically unite together and solve all the problems. It's not going to be like that, but just because it's going to be this Devo Max, unfamiliar structure for them doesn't mean that they need to be afraid of it and decide, well, we're going to side with the military, which I think is what China has decided now there and some neighboring countries are worried about, is the alternative to the Burmese military is going to Be the country dissolving, or failed states or this, but actually you could have reasonably stable state, but made up of multiple administrations without a lot of the problems that they fear.
Host 41:13
So the future of Myanmar without the military is not a centralized government, but a government that we don't usually see in other countries.
Mark Farmaner 41:24
I think that's the, that's what you're already seeing now you're seeing you've got, you know, in different parts of the country, you've got, I mean, some parts like moi and others, you've had this for a long time, and you've had, you know, ethnic armed organizations have had in their territories, they've had their own administrations providing services, justice, health care, schools, forestry, all these different things on a limited scale, and that's being scaled up now, as the you know, you've seen it in Karenni state, with The interim executive committee the Arakan army expanding its administration. Administrative power over more and more of a kind state. So it's already starting to happen. I don't think, at least there won't be a central government and talking to, you know, some ethnic leaders, I think they feel like, once we've got our state, that's it, we're done with it. We're not going to cross the border and die, you know, for a central government, but as a other leaders, they recognize that there, there needs to be a state, a central government, a stable central government, and it's in their interests to support that happening and so and they would be willing to support, you know that I think if that means sending their Soldiers to help support the central government as part of that new system. I think then some of them are willing to do that.
Host 42:47
The interim government, national unity government, was trying to replace whatever we had lost because of the coup. Do you think that would be the in this future of Myanmar without the military, is that in the cards.
Mark Farmaner 43:06
I can't to be I can't see them being able to form a central government of the kind that they was pre coup. And I think we already saw that when there were some instances of them trying to establish administrations and some ethnic controlled areas in khwareny state, Khin state, and where they then got slapped down very hard by the ethnic organizations there, saying, No, this is our area. You don't have the authority to do that here. So and I think, yeah, I think it's the situation of them is hugely challenging, and, you know, there is unfair criticism of them from international community and and others. You know, they're trying to be a government when they don't have the sort of the finance, the capacity, the experience, in a lot of cases, to sort of properly administer any areas, the areas where in Saginaw state, or others where they're trying to establish administrations in impossible situations where no one could really do so very easily, and when they don't get that right first time, then They face a lot of criticism for it, but, but I think they they haven't managed to reach out, if successfully, to the neighboring countries. So they'vegot support from sympathy from Western countries, but in the region, the neighboring countries, they haven't managed to reach out and convince them in the way that sort of would have been good if they've been able to. And I don't know if that's was always an impossible task anyway, but the you know, the key influential countries, the neighboring countries, you you. They are still backing the military, or the ones that were sitting on the fence, the military has very successfully manipulated the earthquake situation to their advantage, to sort of gain that legitimacy again. Now so you know that these local governments, which ASEAN countries, which were avoiding meeting with the military, are now willing to do so and and give them that perceived legitimacy. So, yeah, it's, it's hard to see where, you know, where the energy can go in terms of ever forming a central government when you've got, for example, NLD, MPs and who've deliberately stayed away from the energy and sort of biding their time, saying they are the legitimate ones, and the energy has no legitimacy, and we are the elected ones. And that's it. There's, you know, there's a lot of these sort of politics going on behind the scenes and and the international community is very aware of that, because these MPs are telling them that. So they're briefing against the energy behind the scenes, and they're waiting for an opportunity when the military is desperate enough for dialog, or when the military is defeated or collapsed, and they want to go back and say, we were elected and we got the legitimacy. So it's going to be very challenging.
Host 46:25
We're talking about the the future right in order to reach there, there's still so much we need to do right now. What it What have you been doing, or what are the works that you've been doing to reach that future, that we all hope for, the future without a role of military.
Mark Farmaner 46:44
I was for Burma campaign UK. It's not for us to tell people in the country what to do. We always try and follow the sort of the lead of the movement. And there was very clear after coup began in 2021 there were five clear things that came across which deny the military the legitimacy they want, cut off their sources of revenue, cut off their sources of arms, justice and accountability and humanitarian assistance, support for civil society as well. So these were the five areas that we have been focusing on in terms of advocacy, trying, we were very successful that not just Burma campaign UK, but we as an international advocates, were very successful at the beginning in getting sanctions on military companies, on getting sanctions on Some of the cronies that were involved in supplying arms. And we, we lobbied at the very beginning to say, you can't repeat the mistakes of how sanctions were applied after 88 because they were only about four main rounds of sanctions after 88 and it was always just after there was an atrocity, there was political momentum for the European Union and the US and Australia Canada to do something, and they would slap on a round of sanctions. And then that was it. Job done. And so we were saying, you can't that approach isn't effective enough. You need to systematically identify and sanction sources of revenue, arms equipment, on an ongoing basis. And that did happen for about three years, but the last year, year and a half, actually, it's the paper from a dribble to a trickle, and yeah, there hasn't been the same willingness to keep imposing those sanctions, and you need to do that because in part, you just there's no silver bullet. There's no magic solution. In terms of international pressure on the military, you just have to do everything you can to throw sand in the cogs to make life more difficult and harder for them, in the same way that everyone in the country is doing so much that they can in giving their lives and everything to try to resist military rule, and the least the international community can do is just, we'll do our bit by everything we can do to cut off revenue, arms and equipment. We will try. We'll try and do our best, and not to impose sort of overall blanket sanctions that's going to hurt the general population, but to keep identifying these sources of revenue and arms and sanctioning them, and to do it on an ongoing basis as well, because the military will find ways around sanctions eventually. So you need to keep this like black and rollers. They've got you, you've got to keep finding where they're doing another route, what they've done now, and sanction that. And the British government, the EU, the US, have not been willing to sort of sustain that pressure. So that's a big, big loss, and that makes life easier for the Burmese Miller.
Host 50:00
Three as well, right? So more targeted sanctions, instead of blanket sanctions that could hurt the people of Burma more.
Mark Farmaner 50:09
Yeah. So I think you also, I think there needs to be a willingness. We have seen some Russian companies that supplied aircraft parts to the Burmese military sanctioned, but, but, but then, Chinese companies supplying whole jets haven't been sanctioned. Vietnamese companies supplying jet fuel have not been sanctioned. So there needs to be a bit more willingness, because it's, you know, the soft targets have been sanctioned. And there needs to be a bit more willingness to to go and sanction third countries which are providing arms and equipment to the military, and which has happened over Ukraine but isn't happening over the situation in Burma. So yeah, we need to try to increase pressure on governments to do that right now. We you know, we'vehad this whole series of blows from the Trump administration on a whole range of areas, but we don't yet know even what their policy is going to be. We haven't seen any significant steps in terms of the policy, are they going to sort of continue and increase sanctions, or are they going to jump the other way? We just don't know. So that's a big uncertain factor that we've still got as well.
Host 51:36
Yeah, it's been a little over 100 days since Trump min administration come into power, and already we're seeing so much damage done to in terms of Myanmar, you know, in terms of attention, humanitarian aid, or any kind of support, you know, as you know, the one of the executive order is to cut off the DEI, diversity, equity and the inclusivity scholarship from Myanmar students, that includes those at the border who were already enrolled, who were already starting school. So a lot of lives are different now because of this new administration the United States as well.
Mark Farmaner 52:22
Yeah, the list is so long of the negative impacts of Trump administration in terms of media VOA, but also funding for Burmese media, for the scholarships, for the cuts that have happened with any D overall humanitarian aid cuts, it's yeah and you know, but also stopping finance for some of the think tanks, you said, Wilson Center, which, since the coup, have been providing important analysis and information, which is informing decision makers, and which has been useful. So, yeah, there's a lot of different ways, and we don't even know you. You see now Trump is not just in terms of Ukraine, in conflicts in Africa. He's his big thing is you've got to stop fighting, and he wants to end the conflict. You've got to negotiate. You've got to have dialog. You've got to negotiate, and you've got to stop fighting. But if that happens in Burma, then the military saved that's not what people in the country want to happen. And so, you know, some people in the US joke that they they want to keep Burma off of his radar, because you never know which way he's going to jump. And of course, if Russia have got their ear as well, and Russia is such a strong backer of the Burmese military, then, yeah, that's a big problem, but China.
Host 53:42
US doesn't want China to prompt them, you know, so, but China having their claws in Myanmar wouldn't but one would think that wouldn't us want more influence or more involvement in Myanmar to counter that.
Mark Farmaner 53:58
But the US has gone the opposite way. It's given $9 million in earthquake assistance, and China's given $136 million they are, you know, they are actually getting rid of their influence in multiple ways with the media cuts and others, but also the you you've got some of the right wing think tanks that have been associated with people around Trump who have been suggesting that the best option to to pull Burma away from China is to switch sides and back the Burmese military. So, you know, they've been seriously suggesting that as an option many absurd things hasTrump done? So it so people in the US assure me that that can't or won't happen, but then there's so many things have happened which people have told me can't or won't happen, so you just don't know which way they'll jump. And so we. Have to just watch very carefully. But the Burmese military, of you, they're back. They're playing a better diplomatic game now. They they played it very dumb just before and since the coup, but they seem to be, yeah, playing that. They really using the earthquake very effectively for their own benefit. They're having a very goodearthquake. They're benefiting in multiple ways from it.
Host 55:25
And how do you think they are benefiting? You know, the earthquake was massive, you know, massive damage in 100 years, and so many people are suffering. And also the Myanmar military receive or like welcomes foreign aids, right? And, you know, can you clarify on what you mean by like, they could be benefiting from the earthquake.
Mark Farmaner 55:49
I think, where you see the fact that they call for international aid, when people's memories of this sort of similar situation, Cyclone, I guess, is when they wouldn't let aid in. So they're being given a lot of credit for that, that they changed their approach, for that, that they that they have been allowing certain amount of access. I mean, they turned down some of the Western teams, but a lot of the regional teams from neighboring countries were allowed in. So that's bought them a lot of goodwill internationally. And you know, they've been more cooperative with some of the international aid agencies in where they can have access. Obviously, there's a lot that people don't see, like we, we, we, our sister organization, advanced Myanmar, which has been providing earthquake relief. We're hearing from people about the obstructions, difficulties, the challenges, the roadblocks that they've got in trying to deliver assistance. But for the big international agencies, they you know, obviously they're not trying to get somewhere where they know the military are going to say no but, but they are having an easier time with it. Is what they're briefing.So the military are getting credit for that. They they've milked this for the international legitimacy with managing secure the ASEAN meetings, meetings with Malaysia government, the state media, propaganda channels, military media, you know, full of pictures of phone calls with mineral eyes having with different international leaders. So, you know, they've maximized that in terms of their international outreach. And also, you know, there's a feeling among sort of Western countries now, now is not the time to sort of step up any criticism, strong criticism, too much, or impose new sanctions, or anything like that, because we don't want to endanger the access we've got at this time. So they're able to buy some sort of political cover with the earthquake as well. And of course, they've been direct recipients of huge amounts of international aid. Western aid doesn't go through the military or any of the ministries or structures that they control, but regional countries have just been delivering plane loads of aid or sending the government money the business cronies giving them billions. And of course, you know they're going to find lots of ways to milk that, whether it's contracts from military owned companies or, you know, you name it, they'll find ways to benefit from that money as well, in terms of where it goes, who benefits from it, which companies get the contracts. So it's going, it's gone very well for them in, you know, from an international perspective and a financial perspective, obviously, domestically, it might it's going to increase the resentment against the military, because, you know, their response has actually been quite pathetic, very limited. Some places they haven't responded at all. So they could have longer term domestic repercussions. But it's not a popular regime anyway.
Host 59:02
So what? What else can we do? You know, like, as as our listeners, or as friends of Myanmar, who wants to help not just the victims of the earthquake, but also just Myanmar people in general, we're, you know, a lot of people are put in a rock and a hard place to think like, who do we trust to donate? Or do we encourage donation to go to certain people? Or what do you think is the best way friends of Burma can be helpful?
Mark Farmaner 59:34
Well, I think especially for sort of communities of people from Burma around the world, I think they, they do know that organizations, they a lot of them, they're supporting PDFs or hospitals or different things, or, you know, from different ethnic communities. Obviously, they've got their own civil society and infrastructure so, and that's been, that's been vital. But you know, when the International. Community hasn't stepped up this worldwide network of people from the country who have been stepping up and holding so many events and fundraising and giving that money. But I think the where we were missing is that coordinated international advocacy to sort of to cut off those sources of revenue alarms. And I think one of the Yeah, when it sounds the most boring or obvious thing, but one of the most effective things is contacting your local parliamentarian, Congress person, whatever political system you got, who your elected representative is. And that's something that Burma campaign UK is always focused on. Because if you've got a parliamentarian who becomes interested and sympathetic, then you know, when they write to the Foreign Minister about something, the foreign minister is going to reply to them. They're going to send a letter back. It's not just going to get a stock reply like, if we write, you know, as individuals, if you know, they can raise questions in Parliament, they can talk to other parliamentarians or people in legislatures as well, and and if you've got multiple people doing that, then you build up a group of MPs or parliamentarians where you know congress people, they're building that caucus in the US now, and that can become a really powerful way to influence government policy, because at the end of the day, there isn't, you know, for for Burma, It's not a priority for most Western countries anyway, and, and, but if you're if you're a foreign minister, if you're a prime minister, and you've got loads of parliamentarians, and you've got lots of members of the public in your country saying, Do this, do this, do this. And it's you don't care much either way, there's no reason not to do something. You haven't got a big reason not to do something. It's just not a priority to do something. But if you've got parliamentarians and members of the public pressuring you, you can, well, I can score some easy points here. I can get some popularity points. I can make my political colleagues happy. I can make constituents happy by doing this at no real political or economic cost. So it's an easy win when you for for politicians to do these things once you've built up that that sort of base. So the most important thing write to whoever your local representative is, ask if you could go and meet them and talk about the situation. Say that more needs to be done to provide humanitarian assistance. Say that more needs to be done to to cut off revenue and build that pressure up that that works. That's what Burma campaign UK has been doing for 25 years, and that's how we get the British government to act. Because you build up, and it takes time, but you build up that support in parliaments, in legislatures, and it puts pressure on governments and and they act. It takes time. It's a bit scary to some people are very nervous just to write out of the blue but, but there was one time there was a debate on on Burma in the British Parliament, and there was a very senior politician who never showed any interest, and who stood up and gave this very passionate speech and really strongly criticizing the government for not doing enough and calling on them to do more. It was, you know, very important. And he said he did that because he had two constituents from Burma came and met him and explained the situation for him. And I didn't know anything about Burma or even where it was. But once they told him what was going on and what the British government should be doing, and wasn't he came and made a speech about it, and he became engaged. It works.
Host 1:03:52
Yeah, in United States as well, they created this Burma caucus in Congress, you know, bipartisan representatives that focus on Burma issues. And you know, the the co chair of Burma caucus, Congressman Bill Huizenga, he said that the reason he did it is because of his constituents. You know, mostly well for his case, mostly Christians, and he is Republican leaning, so, you know, and there's a lot of constituents buy to him, talk to him. And, you know, have lobby in their own ways, without some, without even organizational support in, you know, making, making the United States move, you know, go on with it. Do more things. Do more sanction. You know, it is, I think everybody, every community, Burmese, community abroad, is trying to go home in some ways. You know, I have been away from home for so long. And, you know, with the coup. Suu and the pandemic, and one thing led to another, I haven't been able to go back home in a very long time, and I hope my son, one day, will be able to go home. I hope it's sooner rather than later. And you know, I I want to encourage all, all of our listeners, to do support in whatever they can, to leave Myanmar in a as a better place for the future generation.
Mark Farmaner 1:05:33
Yeah, people abroad, people from Burma, who abroad, they they have enormous power now. They have a lot of power that they can use, and because they've got, they've got representatives that they can reach out to. And it's, it's scary. And I think you there are organizations in the UK, people can come to Burma campaign UK. There's Us campaign for Burma International, campaign for Rohingya in the US and many others. If you want support, it can be scary to reach out to someone, but that it's these elected representatives. It's their job, and in most countries, they have an obligation. If you write to them, they're meant to write back. And you can go, and most of them will agree to meet these people in their area, and you can have enormous influence, more than you would have if living in the country, in some cases, in some countries, because you can influence the foreign policy of the country you live in through your elected representative. And doing that through different representatives, building up a body like the caucus you're referring to. It. It's incredibly powerful. It's really influential. It's the single most effective thing we, yeah, even when we, you know, during the so called reform process, when Burma campaign UK, we lost all our grants because we, we refuse to accept that the reform process was genuine that the military were reforming, we didn't go along with that narrative, so our donors all cut us, and we lost half our staff, but we still kept a parliamentary officer, because that is so important that that work is so important for all of the efficacy.
Host 1:07:17
Yeah, sorry, that's my new boss in the background.
Mark Farmaner 1:07:22
So lucky, none of mine have burst in yet. So
Host 1:07:26
Yeah, I'm, yeah, he's, he's growing rapidly. And, you know, this is, honestly, I feel like it's an embodiment of my hope for the country, like I always, you know, put trying to get the connection with my country, Burma, even though I've been living abroad for so long. And you know this, this hope that one day all of us can return into Myanmar that we once know, or a better place for us, is what keeps me going.
Mark Farmaner 1:08:03
When you talked about I want to go home. And we actually did a campaign in the late 2000s called I want to go home, because that's what everyone from the country told me, yeah, they and so we had a campaign, I want to go home, where people told their stories why they ended up in the UK. And, yeah, and, and that they wanted to go home. And we had, I think we had an event in parliament where people just held up signs, I want to go home. People protested on the streets in London with the placard saying, I want to go home. And, yeah, it was very powerful. Because, yeah, people, they thinking about Burma in one way, as the military dictatorship and all the things going on there. But to actually see people from the country saying, I want to go home, and it's struck something I think, with people in the UK is like, imagine you, for people here in the UK, the idea that you can't go home, is it impossible to conceive? And so to see people there saying, Yeah, I want to go home, and they couldn't, I think that was a very powerful message, and very sad one as well.
Host 1:09:12
So that's a very powerful campaign, you know this that's a that's the idea that resonate with a lot of Burmese people abroad. But on the flip side, the generation that is stuck in the country, and there's conscription law that will make them join the military, that will make them do things that they don't particularly want to do. You know, a lot of people in my generation, older, younger. A lot of people try to do civil disobedient movement, CDM right after the coup, but somehow, some of them quietly have to work again for their survival. And there are still so many of people who, although they want to leave. Leave although they want to stay. There are situations that is not allowing them, you know. So I don't have a solution. I'm hoping we could all come up with a solution, you know, like, I mean, I know that everybody is doing whatever they can to go home, or to preserve home, as home as we know it should stand.
Mark Farmaner 1:10:28
I think you were talking earlier when you said about the multiple crises, and, yeah, and you just got because, you know, like you say, you've had the cyclones, there's floods, there's earthquake, there's the coup, but you talking to people in the central part of Myanmar, where the heat now is so much they can only grow one crop compared to two a year because of climate change, the second most vulnerable country In the world for climate change and and that's already hitting. That's why, part of reason why you've got the storms and the floods and the increased heat as well, and there's a real urgency to deal with climate change in the country. It's a desperate situation, and nothing can happen because of the military. And, yeah, and so even when you, even if the military are defeated, and you've got all of the challenges to deal with, with the different ethnic and religious tensions and multiple administrations and everything like that, on top of all of that, is going to be, yeah, really strong impacts of climate change, more than most other countries are going to experience as well. And you also talk about resilience, and yeah, I think youknow, seeing people saying it more publicly, but people telling we're not resilient. We just have no other choice. We have no options at all, you know, and we're left alone to do it. And yeah, I Ihave, you know, when I was at the development agency, Christian Aid, I did travel around the world a bit, and I do have to say that, having been to several countries, people from Burma, they really do step up. They're not waiting for anyone to solve problems for them, like I have seen a bit in some other country. They're not waiting for aid agencies or un or someone to come and help. They, you know, immediately they they set up organizations, they work together to try and solve problems in the most impossible situations every single time. And yeah, that is really remarkable. But I don't know if you call that resilience when there is no other choice, but certainly it is inspiring to see over and over again, despite everything, people not giving up and and in the worst kind of situations, and you kind of think you can't, yeah, you can't stop because the problem isn't it hasn't gone and when I started at Burma campaign, UK, and after about three years, people saying, isn't it time you moved on? You should go to another organization, or people would just think of you as a Burma person, and it won't be good for your career, but the problem hasn't gone so I can't go, yeah.
Host 1:13:29
Well, we thank you for staying on with the as friends of Myanmar. You know,
Mark Farmaner 1:13:34
It's easy for me. I have a choice. You know, you don't. People from the country have no choice.
Host 1:13:39
Yeah, that's why being called resilient is easy for somebody, an outsider, to call it, but when people don't have a choice, what choice do they have but to survive? Yeah, and you know, with the earthquake, with limited resources, the military said they're helping, but the aid never came to most of them. So what I noticed is that in communities, they all come together. And you know, one person from Central Myanmar, they their house collapsed. Some family members were stuck, and they were forced to live on the street, and they don't have anything, right? So they have togive the priority to the grand, grandpa, grandma and the babies to sleep inside the mosquito net. They only have time to bring one or two that they have, and they were sleeping in there. And a few days later, or maybe the next day, there were private donors that came and distributed mosquito nets with their own money. They were helping, and that was not on a large scale or any foreign aids or any institutional help at all. It's just people who had more just thought they should share, and nobody was telling them what to do, but they just had. Happen to help build each other's houses. And, you know, from an outsider's perspective, they see this as like, wow. You know, it's just like, I, I'm sure it, it looks like this, picture perfect situation. But what choice do they really have but to help each other? You know, we are, and I, personally, I want to be the country of Burma, to be seen as a victim all the time. The people are resilient, but also they want to live. They want to thrive more than survive. You know, that is like, if you ask me, that's the future of Myanmar that I'm striving to see.
Mark Farmaner 1:15:47
When we because, obviously the main area where the earthquake is in central parts of the country. But we knew that there were impacts across the country, and we reached out to some of the civil society groups working in different parts of the country, just to make sure, like, you know, what's the impact of the earthquake there? And and, and what was remarkable is there's some from a long way away, organizations where, in their own states, in their own areas, the situation is dreadful. And we were saying, Yeah, is there an impact there? Do you need help? And they said, Oh, not an impact here, but we've already sent some people. They're on their way to Sagai now. They, like, hundreds and hundreds of miles away, and they straight away, they sent people there to go and help. And you know, when they had nothing themselves, when they have a dreadful situation with conflict and IDPs in their own areas and others, and we're still sending teams to help, it was remarkable.
Host 1:16:55
Yeah, out of all the one after another crisis that Myanmar face, I want to end on this hopeful note, and I want to thank you for all that you are doing for Obama, and I know it's part of the many hats you wear. And you know your your beginning as part of protest, leading to how you got into Myanmar, and for sticking with it. Like you said, the problem hasn't gone away, and we don'twant to be forgotten. And so if we need to do another parade, and you know, get the international media attention, just like in the 90s, way to for people to not forget about Myanmar, I'm sure a lot of people are willing to do that.
Mark Farmaner 1:17:44
I think so. I think it's inevitable that people of Burma will win their freedom, and we just have to make sure the international community does as much as it can to make sure that we help the people bring that about sooner rather than later. You
Host 1:18:14
Thank you for listening to this episode of Insight Myanmar podcast. This was a real conversation between two individuals that may sound like a self evident or rather strange thing to emphasize, but in the world increasingly dominated by AI generated content and short form pieces designed just to grab clicks, we're proud to offer something genuine. Our podcast platform is built around long form conversations, real, meaningful dialog between individuals who sit down to speak at length about important issues. These are not rush, surface level exchanges. They'redeeply human interactions that take time, care and effort to produce, and there are no shortcuts to creating this kind of content. Each episode requires research, preparation, recording, editingand careful curation to ensure that the voices and stories we share truly resonate. It's a labor of love, but it does come with real costs, costs that reflect the care time and energy it takes to prioritize depth over brevity and substance over spectacle. If you value this approach and want to help us continue creating these conversations. Please consider supporting our work. Your support allows us to uphold this commitment to quality and authenticity, ensuring that these stories remain accessible in a world that so often prioritizes shortcuts. Visit insightmyanmar.org/donation to make a contribution.