The February 1st coup launched by Myanmar's military effectively put an end to the country's tentative transition to democracy as civilian political leaders were imprisoned and the results of the 2020 elections annulled. Now, what's next for the country?
The February 1st coup launched by Myanmar's military effectively put an end to the country's tentative transition to democracy as civilian political leaders were imprisoned and the results of the 2020 elections annulled. On Friday, February 19th, the Ash Center hosted a discussion titled Myanmar After the Coup. Joining the Center to discuss these recent events in Myanmar and what they portend for the country's future were Pwint Htun, Non-Residential Myanmar Program Fellow at the Ash Center and Derek Mitchell, president of the National Democratic Institute and former U.S. ambassador to Myanmar. The conversation was moderated by Tarek Masoud, Professor of Public Policy and Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman Professor of International Relations at HKS.
The transcript for this episode is online here.
About the Ash Center
The Ash Center is a research center and think tank at Harvard Kennedy School focused on democracy, government innovation, and Asia public policy. AshCast, the Center's podcast series, is a collection of conversations, including events and Q&As with experts, from around the Center on pressing issues, forward-looking solutions, and more.
Visit the Ash Center online, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. For updates on the latest research, events, and activities, please signup for our newsletter.
[Music]
Presenter: You're listening to AshCast, the podcast of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School.
Pwint Htun: What is happening today in Myanmar is not really about Aung San Suu Kyi or Min Aung Hlaing as much. It is about a different future without authoritarian regime where people live without fear. People of Myanmar are just fed up of men with guns oppressing the country since 1962.
Tarek Masoud: Greetings, friends and colleagues, and welcome to today's conversation on the military coup and the ongoing protests in Myanmar. As Melissa D'Anello said, I'm Tarek Masoud. I'm a professor here at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and in addition to directing our Middle East Initiative, I'm also the Director of the Ash Center's Program on Democracy in Hard Places. And it's really a great honor for me to have the opportunity to moderate this afternoon's event on this very important subject. In 2008, Myanmar's military, which has dominated that country for much of the period since its formal independence in 1948, initiated a constitutional reform that, despite many flaws, appeared to a lot of us to inaugurate a transition. That transition may not have been quite to democracy, but it seemed to be to a new order in which power was at least to be shared with civilians. Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader who had been held under house arrest since 1989 was released. Her party was allowed to run in elections, and she became the equivalent of the country's prime minister. Now, despite the country's wrenching poverty, it's inflamed ethnic divisions, and a government campaign against the Muslim Rohingya minority, there was a general feeling of cautious optimism about Myanmar's democratic prospects. One could be forgiven for viewing the events of February 1st of this year, in which the military hustled San Suu Kyi back under arrest and abrogated the democratic institutions, as marking the end of that transition. In fact, one might even say that the events validate a pessimistic social scientific perspective on democratization that says that poor countries with the kinds of structural challenges that Myanmar faces, a per capita GDP of 1,400 US dollars, an illiteracy rate of about a quarter of the population, and an administrative apparatus that the World Bank puts in the bottom 11% of countries in terms of its effectiveness, that basically countries like this are just unable to get, let alone keep, democracy. And yet, the events of the last few days suggest that the people of Myanmar are doing their best to defy the grim predictions of the dismal social scientists. Far from acquiescing in the elimination of their country's small margin of democracy, they have taken to the streets to restore it. And while the military shows no sign of acceding to their demands, it's clear that we cannot yet talk about the failure of Myanmar's democracy. And although the smart money probably remains on this being a dark moment in Myanmar's political trajectory, my hope is that we'll learn from today's speakers whether there is any prospect that this may yet turn out to be that country's finest hour. We have two of the best people imaginable to help us puzzle through this question and to understand the stakes of what is happening in Myanmar. First, is Pwint Htun, who is an Ash Center Fellow with the Myanmar Program. She's from Myanmar, and has been a leader in helping to shape her country's telecommunications and mobile financial services industries. She is deeply knowledgeable and embedded in her home country, and we are lucky, indeed, to have her here so that we can hear her very grounded perspective. We also have with us, Derek Mitchell, who is the President of the National Democratic Institute, and who from 2012 to 2016 served as the first United States Ambassador to Myanmar in more than two decades. He's also a very close observer of China and a sophisticated mind on questions of democracy promotion, and so I think he will be able to help us understand what the US can and should do to get Myanmar back on track and can also speak to China's unfolding role in this crisis. We have until 1:00 PM together, and so the way we thought we would organize today's event is that each of our speakers would offer about 10 minutes of comments about the crisis, the proper response from democratic countries and people of goodwill everywhere, and after which we will open it up for questions from you. And so with that, let me turn it over to Pwint Htun. Thank you.
Pwint Htun: Thank you so much, Tarek. First of all, I would like everyone here to imagine what it is like to be living in Burma right now. So let's imagine that US military has committed a treasonous coup, throwing out the November election result. Let's imagine that the military has dissolved the three branches of power and consolidated all the powers into the hands of one egotistical, sociopathic Commander in Chief who thinks he is above the law and who thinks military and police are above the law. Let's imagine every single senator, every Congressional representative who opposed the coup are in hiding. And those senators that are found, get thrown into jail. And imagine that the police and soldiers, instead of protecting you, decided to treat citizens as enemies of the most powerful man. And a few police officers who refuse to follow orders to oppress people, they too are arrested and jailed. So imagine that citizens' civil liberties are stripped away overnight. Soldiers and police loyal to the Commander in Chief can march into any household and search or seize anything or anyone at will without any warrant. Anyone can be held by the military and police for any length of time, without reason. So reporters and activists are in hiding as well. At night, you can't sleep because you fear the knocking of the police. You fear that the police may be coming to arrest you for your refusal to serve the coup makers. And jails have been emptied, and criminals are released into the streets so you stay awake all night. You live in fear that there might be some drugged-up criminals or arsonists who are throwing around Molotov cocktails in the neighborhoods. And even when you caught the arsonists, police refused to arrest them and let the arsonists go free. You feel like a kidnapped victim, and you express that outrage you feel on social media, only the internet has shut down, and these internet shutdowns prevents you from knowing whether your loved ones are safe. So you try to organize and mobilize against these injustices. And coup-makers intercept your phone calls and your text messages. Any criticism you write online against these injustices are offenses that can land you in jail. So you bang your pots and pans at 8:00 PM every night to express this frustration. And even that, that offense of banging the pots in your own home can land you in jail for six months. And it is worse than the scariest dystopian movie. This is the reality of the unarmed 54 million people in Myanmar are living through since February 1st. And that is the reality that China has called a cabinet reshuffle. And I know that outrage that millions of people in Myanmar are experiencing, because my family and I have experienced firsthand of it, and we witnessed it when the Burmese military brutality 33 years ago, when the soldiers gunned down hundreds of unarmed protesters right in front of our apartment. And we too have experienced that fear of soldiers carrying bayoneted guns marched into our apartments without warrant and searching. And soldiers waited at the hospital to arrest anyone with a gunshot wound that people did not dare to go to the hospital. My mom, being a physician, treated wounded protesters in the basement of a church, and which was considered a crime that we had to flee the country. And 33 years later, it feels like a bad deja vu, because the mindset of the military and the police hasn't changed yet. But there is one giant difference: Everyone have access to smartphones and social media, and this freedom, this shortest, slightest freedom that was experienced by young people in Myanmar over the last decade has kind of given courage to this new generation of digital savvy activists. Today, information flows at the speed of light. We were worried when the Commander in Chief of Myanmar was repeating the exact words of the 45th President of the United States around the voter fraud. We were anticipating and preparing for the worst. But what is happening today in Myanmar is not really about Aung San Suu Kyi or Min Aung Hlaing as much. It is about a different future without authoritarian regime where people live without fear. People of Myanmar are just fed up of men with guns oppressing the country since 1962. So we have estimated 500,000 military personnel with guns that has been holding the country hostage for this entire population of 54 million people. People's fear of returning to the dark days is a much bigger fear than being killed by the military at the moment. I know the mothers in Myanmar who are saying that we know what it's like to live under the fear of military and police. That era of fear, that era of oppression has to end now. And these women and young people of Myanmar are saying enough. Armed with smartphones and social medias, they're using the two Koreas as an example. They say, either we overthrow the authoritarian regime once and for all and grow to be prosperous like South Korea, or else future generations down the road will still have to live under fear like North Korea. So they started this non-violent, civil disobedience movement called the CDM, led by civil servants, which is gaining traction across the countries. Multi-generations are working together to reject the military coup and the military rules of the country. And the unity, creativity, and diversity of this current movement is truly inspiring. When the Commander in Chief decided to throw out NLD's landslide win from November elections, he had not anticipated the Civil Disobedience Movement. He had not anticipated this nationwide uprising led by the Generation Z. He had not anticipated these fearless young people. He had not anticipated that the disobedient civil servants. He was just following the previous dictator's playbook. And in Myanmar, military is a privileged caste. It's a caste system. In order to isolate the military caste from the civilians, military personnel in Myanmar have their own hospitals, their own banks, their own golf courses, all in these isolated, gated communities, compounds of military all over the country. Those in the military were not allowed to listen to shortwave radios in the past for fear of overhearing BBC Burmese news. But today, military personnel are not as isolated as before because of smartphones and social media. Soldiers and police have access to the same information on social media that everyone else have. So soldiers and police may lie that millions of people are supporting them, but they really do know how millions of citizens really feel about the impunity culture of the military. We are hoping that the social media and smartphones in the hands of courageous citizens could be the catalyzing difference that support the people of Myanmar's efforts to end authoritarian rule. We are at a fork in the road right now. With international pressure, this Civil Disobedience Movement can succeed. When we finally manage to overthrow the regime once and for all, we need to be forging a truly federal democratic country out of the ashes of the last 60 years of military rule. And this time we need to build back better, not a compromised democracy of the most recent era with the tenuous power sharing deal with the military. This time we need peace with equal rights and citizenship for all our marginalized ethnic and religious communities. We need an end to the culture of impunity for the military, this institution that has committed gross violations of people's human rights and mass atrocities over the decades. And we need to shift power from the men with guns, to women with smartphones. And this alternative to this is the darkness that we have been living in, not just over these last few heartbreaking weeks, but the decades of oppression that proceeded it. So my appeal to all of you is to please stand with the courageous people of Myanmar. Thank you.
Tarek Masoud: Thank you very much, Pwint Htun for those remarks. Before we go on to Ambassador Mitchell, might I ask, you reminded everybody that this military intervention came after a landslide win for the National League for Democracy, the party of Aung San Suu Kyi. And so it clearly does look like a miscalculation on the part of the military that should have been in an avoidable miscalculation given how well that party did in the election. I study the Arab world, and in the Arab world, 10 years ago, there was a series of uprisings that, in some countries, actually resulted in some changes towards democracy. And one of the key things that happened in all of those countries that experienced some measure of democratic transition was that the military defected from the leadership of the country and said it would side with the protestors. Given the scale of the leaders' miscalculation with respect to the NLD, are there some elements within the military that are dissatisfied and would actually be expected to side, or might be expected to side with the protestors?
Pwint Htun: In the past, the military has been an extremely strong institution that has been, you know, waging war for the last 75 years. So the strength of the military and that unity is something that we had really wondered whether that if there could be factions within the military. So far, we have had one sergeant from the military who had defected. And what I am really hopeful for is that, regardless of how the military had tried to insulated everyone, people within the military cannot deny how the people really feel about them and that there might be some forces who can really see that all this coup is all for the ego of one human being, the Commander in Chief. This coup that destabilized the country and impacting the state of minds of millions of people all over the country is all to enhance the egotistical, one, Commander in Chief. So my earnest hope is that there are people within the military who will put the country before the institution of the military.
Tarek Masoud: Thank you, Pwint. There will be a lot more, I think, to say about this once we get to the question and answer period. And now let me turn it over to Ambassador Derek Mitchell. Ambassador.
Derek Mitchell: Professor Masoud, thank you so much. Thank you to the Ash Center, generally. I can listen to Pwint all day. I feel like I don't want to even jump in because I wanna hear from her. I, obviously, endorse everything that she has said and inspired by it, and inspired by her work. I know she has, she goes back and forth to Myanmar and does very good work for women to empower women and advance democracy in that country. So I feel for you and your family and your friends, but I... Pwint represents the best hope of the country, and I just wish everybody well. I want to build off what she had just said, in fact, and what you had said, Professor Masoud, which is the the desire for democracy is deep in Myanmar. And we've seen this over the decades, and we see it now on the streets. The idea that, well, you have to wait for your democracy, wait for your dignity, wait for your rights, you know, you'll get it in due time, it's enough to have economic development. In fact, that's what the military right now is trying to do. It's trying to message that. That, you know we can do better than those civilians, we'll deliver for you, nothing to see here, we'll continue the same policies as before. And the people are coming out in droves and saying, no, no. First of all, we know you, we know what you're about. You have driven this country into the ground, number one. Number two: we've tasted freedom, we tasted democracy, and as imperfect as it has been, we wanna stay on that track. We want our freedoms. We want to be able to have a say in our own affairs, and we voted in November, we want our respect. So the military, one of the things they say they want for the country is national unity. They say, if it weren't for us, there would be disunity, it would break apart. Well, that may be true today because the one thing that is unifying the country is it's hatred towards the military right now. You see demonstrations all over the country in city after city, not just in the center, but within ethnic nationality areas that have been fighting the center for 70 years. They are unified in saying, we want elections, we want democracy, we want the military out of politics. So in fact, they have unified the country and they've unified it against them. So we really do hope that they listen to the people as they claim and get out of the way of an imperfect democracy, certainly. The other thing I'll say at the top is on US soft power, what we're seeing with young people in the streets. We see young people all over the world in tough places, which I suppose you, Dr. Masoud, are focused on. But you see in places in Sudan and Lebanon, in Nicaragua. We've seen it recently in Hong Kong and Thailand. Everywhere, young people are coming out. Oftentimes, in Belarus, led by women, but also not just women, young men who come out and say we want a difference, we want change. And Myanmar, as in Thailand, they are putting up that three fingers. That three finger salute from "The Hunger Games" that a certain generation will know immediately and other generations will have to learn that say that this is a symbol for freedom, symbol for individual dignity , and symbol for resilience against oppression, opposition, that we will not abide this. We will be disobedient to injustice. We all should be standing with them with those three fingers everywhere as a symbol of our solidarity with people in Myanmar, as well as those in Hong Kong, as well as those in Thailand that are working with folks in Taiwan in the so-called Milk Tea Alliance of young netizens who are trying to create a different path, who are truly the hope of democracy. So that whenever anyone says, oh, well, democracy, young people don't believe in democracy anymore, or democracy is failing around them world and it's regressing, well, I beg I have to differ. That resilience is there, even in America where those poll numbers are down people want their dignity, they want a voice. They're just frustrated with how the democracy is delivering, but they want to have that dignity and they want that voice going forward. Now, I don't wanna talk too long. I do want to get to questions. I was sort of given the task of what is the US perspective and the international perspective on this. I came into this... I mean, I originally came into it with NDI 20-25 years ago, but came back into it during a moment where we saw there might be an opportunity. We saw a possibility, an opening for change where the United States, through engagement, might be able to get more than simple isolation and sanctions. And in fact, we invested in that and we found it was an investment worth making. And we saw a change. We saw political prisoners being released. We saw the NLD being allowed to run for office, including Aung San Suu Kyi reaching the Parliament. We saw the media being opened up, civil society being freed up to speak. All very nascent, all done from top down, all granted by the government. And then we saw the election in 2015, and saw the NLD, in fact, won a landslide and that she was allowed then with her party to take at least 75% of the Parliament. 25% was given to the military, but they got, you know, a majority, an absolute majority of the Parliament. We knew even then, though, we had no illusions that this was going to be easy. That democracy is not built through one election, and that all that happened then was that the responsibilities of the country, the difficult problems of the country were now handed to the NLD, and say, oh, now, you solve this. You solve the longest running civil war in the world. You solve the degradation of capacity in the country that the military had done through isolation over 50 years. It is now your, you know... And the economic degradation. You now are responsible to getting us back on our feet. But we knew the constitution had not changed, that mindsets had not changed in that country, and that that is a much longer process. And that the military, as I engaged the Commander in Chief, I did that, I must've met him 10 to 12, a dozen times, and I tested him like I tested others about their commitment to reform and I didn't see it in him. He was a creature of that military institution, as Pwint has outlined, very conservative, preserve that constitution the way it is, and always with those sort of, that ambition to be the leader. I think every Commander in Chief probably looks in the mirror and sees the leader of the country. They teach themselves, they tell themselves, they train themselves to believe that they are unique as an institution in understanding and being the guarantor of national unity, of national sovereignty, of national integrity, and such, of national interest. They tell themselves this and they firmly believe it, and therefore they feel they have the right to the money, they have the right to the power, the have the right to step in if they don't like something, when the people are saying, in fact, you need to get out of the way if we are going to be a strong country, a stable country, a unified country, and a prosperous country. But, and then, of course, there is corruption involved. They believe they deserve to have the spoils that were given to their superiors over time. So they deserve to have the money and be protected if they were to leave power. All of that, in some fashion, plus a sense, potentially, of being humiliated in a way or not respected enough by the civilians over time may have led to what happened on January 30th. And I completely agree, this was preventable, avoidable, useless, destructive, and the product really of one person. And I do believe there are others within the military. We know, because military districts voted for the NLD. Many of them in large numbers that many people in the military did not agree necessarily with this coup or the reasons for a coup. But once the coup happens, they tend to rally around and follow orders. So that's another question. In terms of US response, again, quickly, I'm sorry to go on to so long, there is the Biden doctrine, as it were. The US has been focused now, very much on values. And the team that is working on this, I'm very close to. I worked with them when I was in government. And Tony Blinken and the President and the rest, are very strong on this. In fact, just today, if you read President Biden at the Munich Security Conference, he has a full throated talk about how democracy must be at the center of our foreign policy as a collective. As a G-7, as a collective in the free world, it is essential. And the Biden doctrine really is about, first of all, American leadership to the degree that we can exercise that even though we're not a model. We've never been a perfect model of democracy. We've never assumed that, but we can exercise leadership because we are powerful and we, I think, if we're on the right side of these issues, we can take a lead and they're taking a lead on Burma. They were the first ones out on sanctions and speaking out and trying to corral the second pillar of the Biden doctrine, allies. We can't do this alone. We need allies, we need partners. This isn't just a nice thing to do, but it builds our power, and it's a responsibility of others. So those three. It's really American leadership, values at the center, and getting allies together. This is the first test of that foreign policy. And not just of US, but of our allies, of others. So they're pushing a very hard, and they recognize that this must be an aggressive part of our foreign policy early on. You see the President come out and in a press-avail, in press conference, with the Vice President standing behind him rolling out the sanctions. That's quite remarkable if you think about it. That won't happen for normal rolling out of sanctions. That was meant as a signal. This is important, this is symbolic, this is absolutely about more than two people. It is about the dignity that has been abused in Myanmar, but also about, broadly, this issue of what we wanna see in the world and we have to stand behind it. So the quad, US, Japan, Australia, India, a statement that came out of them yesterday, very important. Words are cheap sometimes. We're also, I know, putting a lot of stress in behind the scenes, and I'm talking myself to Japanese. I think they're very important, that they can't be business as usual. They can't simply say yes, we believe in these things, but, you know, we have to do business with them and we don't wanna push them to China. Well, we'll get into the China factor, but the military does not wanna be, does not wanna have to deal with China either. And it's actually a point of leverage on them, rather than a point of leverage on us that they would have to be focused, or leaning to China. And we shouldn't allow countries to play that card necessarily. We have bigger issues, strategic issues when it comes to values that we need to stand up and not do business as usual. And I know Japan is having that debate internally, a very active debate, I think we need to be pushing very hard. And then with Indian friends, with Singapore friends, with ASEAN friends, folks are stepping up, as Pwint says, more than we might've expected. To date, it not enough, but the momentum is in the right place. And the final thing I'll say, I suppose, is that this is a long-term issue. We must invest in the longterm. And the biggest challenge we're going to have, if we're looking at the very practical issue here, is what Pwint outlined. She outlined, basically, the fact here: We can't go back to the status quo ante. I don't think the military, I mean, the military, I mean, is is very reluctant, period, to give up. But I think the people are saying enough is enough. We've wanted this change. We want the military out. This hybrid system doesn't work. I mean, guys with guns can always jump in whether it's in the constitution or not. But the question is, how do you, with the military now feeling itself into a corner, enormous pride in their institution, they're going to have to be part of any solution to this. They will have to have some role here. The problem will be even if we saw an indication which we're not seeing yet, that they did want to stand back, or open to compromise, we don't see it yet and I think that's the first step we need by the way, is to test and see if we can find, get them to give a signal they're interested. What would that look like? Would they even engage with Aung San Suu Kyi given the very bad blood that exists between the Commander in Chief and her. Even if they did, what is her perspective on it? These are two very headstrong people, Daw Suu and the Commander in Chief. I'm not saying she's wrong in being headstrong about changing the constitution, but it takes a little, some political savvy and nuance with an institution like the military to get to the right place. How do we get from here to there and reassure them on the things they do care about even as we put pressure on the things they care about? Their money, their power, the sovereign independence of the country, their families, all these things that we're doing now through our sanctions, through targeted efforts. How do we reassure them? You always have to reassure folks to some degree, even as you try and get some flexibility out of them. That's the challenge we face. The easy part is protesting the hard part as a solution. And I'll leave it there for Q and A.
Tarek Masoud: Thank you so much, Ambassador. You know, that last sentence you uttered, the easy part is protest, the hard part is, you know, what comes after that, resonates, I think, a lot with people who studied the Arab Spring. And I know also when you say the easy part is protest, you mean comparatively easy, but, of course you, recognize the enormous heroism and courage it requires. Just before we open it to the broader questions that we have in the Q and A box, I guess, I did want to take advantage of your expertise on China. And, you know, you had mentioned that the junta does not want to become a client of China. And, in fact, my understanding of the initiation of the democratic reforms, if they could be called that, in the in the beginning of the Obama Administration was precisely because the military regime wanted to get closer to the United States and insulate itself a little bit from Chinese meddling. And I wonder, especially given as Pwint Htun said, the Chinese have responded to what has happened as a mere cabinet reshuffle. They seem to be cheering it on, or at least certainly in favor of it. Does this not signal a potential pivot on the part of at least the Supreme Leader of Myanmar to China? And if that's the case, how much can we attribute that to what I imagine, but I'm not certain, but what I imagine would have been four years of relative inattention during the Trump Administration?
Derek Mitchell: That's a very good question. It's a very complex issue, the issue of China. You may hear my dog in the background who is also somewhat famous in Burma, used to be on social media there. Yeah, the China factor is actually complicated and it's more complicated than you suggest. I'm not sure they're thrilled about this coup entirely. They're thrilled... What China wants is a few things. One is they do want stability in Myanmar. They want, and they wanna have a privileged position in Myanmar. They view the country as their sphere of influence. So they want to have privileged access to resources, privilege access to the Indian Ocean, and they also want, number three, is they want the West out as much as, not completely out, but they want that privileged position and the less the United States is a factor there, the better. They see it in very much zero-sum terms. And they essentially had said that to me as I left as an ambassador. That didn't mean they necessarily like this coup. They had a, the military has a pretty bad view of China. People over maybe a generation slightly above Min Aung Hlaing had fought communist insurgencies right up until the late 1980s that were supported by China. Some of them might've been involving Chinese, Chinese mercenaries, and with Chinese weapons that had killed Myanmar military people. They remember this very much. Even today, Chinese weapons are getting into the hands of ethnic armed groups. And they wonder if the Chinese are playing a double game using this, turning the screws on this. You know, if they want something they can ramp it up and cause you problems or ramp it down. There's also centuries of experience of being invaded by China. They see the Chinese coming in and buying up Mandalay and investing, and they know that... And then taking resources, not caring at all about local communities, caring all about environmental or social impacts. The Chinese don't care about Myanmar at all. The people know it, and the military also knows it very well. It was interesting, though, that after, particularly after, though it started before. They have to have a good relationship with China. They don't wanna have to choose between the US and China. I agree with you. They wanted balance. That was one of the reasons they likely were open to my outreach and our outreach to change the relationship. But that outreach was always conditioned on democracy, human rights, and we always talked about its principled engagement and we were partners in reform, not simple engagement and not simple reform, but, you know, partners. And not just partners, but partners in reform. But the Chinese, they were very uncomfortable with that. But when Aung San Suu Kyi's government came in, she recognized she needed a good relationship with them. She was wary of them. But after the Rohingya crisis, the Rohingya atrocities that occurred, our relationships really atrophied. It really alienated us from the people of the country for better or for worse, and certainly from the NLD. And actually the Chinese had a pretty good relationship with the NLD, in some ways better. They had a good modus vivendi, I think, than they had with the military. Not to say that they were giving things up. The NLD, who are also savvy, they had meetings, they got things from the Chinese, but they also managed the Chinese fairly well, and Xi Jinping didn't get everything he wanted. But I do think the status quo was working for China. You know, an alienated West, a modus vivendi with Aung San Suu Kyi who was representing the people of the country. And now what they have is a united country focused again on democracy and human rights, gets the West back engaged, back on the side. Not forgetting Rohingya, and we I'm sure we'll talk about Rohingya. We must not forget the Rohingya crisis through all of this and dealing with that terrible atrocity and tragedy. But we are focused again on the 55, 56 million people and the democratic desires and goals of this society. And that can't be really comfortable for the Chinese and they're trying to figure out how they play this. So they're actually so far being careful and saying some good things, right things in a way, but they also, as Pwint says, say, well, cabinet reshuffle. They're just, they're not in the business of supporting democracy or doing anything, you know, to side with the West for freedom anywhere, anyway.
Tarek Masoud: You know, the discussion of the Rohingya brings to mind some of the criticism that San Suu Kyi has gotten over the last several years for, you know, not being a critic of what is happening to the Rohingya, but instead, in fact, allowing herself to be the face of it. You know, I watched her at the ICC be the face of Myanmar's reprehensible policies towards the Rohingya. And, you know, many argued that in order for her to be able to credibly lead the country, she has to take a stance that is seen as in the national interest. And I guess, I wonder if today the massive outpouring of support that you have for the NLD, the continuing support you had for the NLD and the elections, et cetera, if that, in fact, is attributable in part to some of these very personally costly stances that Aung San Suu Kyi that, at least, that she took that, at least, lost her some credit in Western circles? I'd love to hear from both of you, Pwint and Ambassador Mitchell on that.
Pwint Htun: We saw that, you know, I mean, Aung San Suu Kyi pretty much sacrificed her standing in the world for the cost of defending the atrocities committed by Commander in Chief and the military. And it was really disappointing for a lot of us as well. But in the country's, the population's eyes, she was seen as someone who was defending the country at the time. But what I had understood, actually, based upon my conversations with various people within the very senior leadership within the military, within the NLD, when I had asked, went and asked them, like why are they not stopping the militaries atrocities? The explanation that I was given by someone who is extremely senior in the government was that from the West, looking in, you think we are head of state. You don't realize that we are a head and paralyzed from neck down. And he said, you don't understand that we have no authority over the military. We have no authority over the police. We have no authority over the Ministry of Home Affairs. And he explained to me that, that people misunderstand that how much power the civilian leadership really had. And he explained that if they were to criticize the generals right then, that's pretty much giving permission to the military to coup at the time. So that was how I was explained by people within the senior leadership. And looking back now, I can see the points that he's saying because, I mean, Aung San Suu Kyi right now is under arrest for her security team having access to walkie talkie. And who provide her security team? Military-run Ministry of Home Affairs. So those are the points where I look back and say, wow, okay. So the person, when he was talking about being a head of state, but the head that's paralyzed from neck down, it was extremely vivid reminder of where we are right now.
Derek Mitchell: I have nothing much more to add. I think that's exactly right. In my perspective, I think, as well, I mean, exactly right. She couldn't control what the military did or the police. That's not to let her off the hook, I should add, because as someone who leads her country as the leader, not just the person who governs, I mean, I think people invested in her as a leader. And that she was in some ways, a moral leader and she needed to express a vision for what this new democratic nation, a country that she was founding in a way, the principles under which it was going to operate. And I had hoped that, in fact, when I was even there, she was in opposition. I had had many conversations with her about this. I had hoped after she came into power that early she would talk about the principles of equal justice for all, of equal rights for all, of equal dignity for all. Whether they, we consider them citizens or not, or residents, they should get due process. Violence is never right. We should treat them with dignity, et cetera, and raise that kind of standard. So if something like this happened, she would have a platform by which she can say this is unacceptable for these reasons. Whatever happened, I don't know what happened. We were attacked. We must defend ourselves. You know, that kind of thing 'cause people forget there was an attack on border forces that led to this, again, completely disproportionate and unacceptable response, genocide, crimes against humanity, whatever you want to call it. But there was an attack. So as Pwint says, the people not only rallied around her, they rallied around the military. That was, I don't remember a time where the military was more popular than around the Rohingya situation in 2017, where the people were saying, thank you for protecting us. It goes to a mindset of Muslim encroachment and hostility and xenophobia, and, you know, and basically, ignorance. People view the Rohingya as kind of a third column that was out to undermine this Buddhist, this pure Buddhist society. So there's a lot that she had to deal with, but I don't let her off the hook entirely. But we have to understand that, I take Pwint's point and what she heard, if she had gone against that tide in the way that we would've wanted to, I don't think the military would have waited for 2021. Because she would have been viewed as not protecting the sanctity of the country. But it would have taken a very... She could have maybe really skated a tight edge to do the right thing on principle, even if she she couldn't do right by the Rohingya entirely.
Tarek Masoud: So thank you for that, Derek, and thank you for that really tremendous perspective Pwint Htun. So, you know, we're getting a lot of questions in the Q and A, and I'm trying my best to distill some of the common questions. And I guess one is to both of you, but Pwint Htun in particular, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. We are making certain assumptions about the preferences of the average Burman citizen. And, you know, again, when I think of democratic uprisings in other parts of the world, there is often a difference between the attitudes of the young digital natives who are in the urban core of the country's capital and the others who live on the periphery. And I know that Derek mentioned that, in fact, the protests that you're seeing in Myanmar are happening all over the place. But is there in fact a unanimity on the part of the people of Myanmar in opposition to what has happened? Or is there, as we have seen in some other countries where you had uprisings against authoritarian regimes, a kind of silent plurality, if not majority, that actually does not necessarily want the dramatic restructuring of the status quo?
Pwint Htun: That's an excellent question. What we are seeing across the board in townships, in the ethnic minority regions, to the urban centers, the Buddhist Burman majority regions, to the where the ethnic minorities are living in majority, what we're seeing across the board is this not even going back to this 2008 constitution status quo, but this complete restructuring of never again, we are done with living under authoritarian regime movement. And that's the word that I keep repeatedly hearing across the country is that this is beyond Min Aung Hlaing. This is the end of the era of living under fear. Mothers who are pregnant are saying I don't want my child to grow up and live under fear. I don't want, if we don't stop this now we are gonna be living under the military regime an authority regime, the authoritarian regime 40 years from now. So it's that fear across the board where people are saying we want a different future.
Tarek Masoud: And, you know, this, Derek had mentioned something that I wanted you to react to. And again, it comes up in some of the questions. As Derek pointed out, the military is not going anywhere. And Derek, please also correct me if I'm mischaracterizing anything that you said. But the military remains an important player, and so in any settlement to the current crisis the military will have to be part of the equation. Do you think that's something that the protestors would accept? So for example, let's imagine that the National League for Democracy actually did sit down with the military now or the military sat down with them and they hammered out some agreement where they get to some new situation where the military's prerogatives are diminished, but not eliminated entirely and we have some new broadened form of the status quo ante. Would the people accept that? Or do they want real revolution with all of the meanings that that term entails?
Pwint Htun: From what we are seeing, I mean, yes, the military is not gonna go away. It is the strongest institution in the entire country. But the attempts that the what the civilians are asking is not to allow the military and the police to ever rule again. That they need to report up to the civilian government. That the civilians will have oversight over the authorities of the military and the police. Even in the last decade, the civilian government not having any authority over the military regime, over the military, and this impunity culture has been really detrimental to the country. So people are saying, we want a difference. We want change. But, yes, military will have to be under the civilian authority.
Tarek Masoud: Derek, maybe I can ask you a question. Thank you for that, Pwint Htun. That is coming up a lot in the in the Q and A and in the chat, which is a kind of dissatisfaction with what the United States has done so far and a dissatisfaction with the idea that targeted sanctions towards members of the military could have any effect. There's a lot of, in the Q and A, a lot of people even suggesting a kind of more muscular American, an international response. And I guess the question is what are the prospects for something like that? Could they even work? And really, what are the core US interests here? What argument could be made to members of the Biden Administration to convince them that actually more than just the sanctions are needed?
Derek Mitchell: I haven't been able to read the Q and A to see all of and the comments of the questions on this. But I know, I mean, people have thrown out there the notion of military invasion or aggressive action. I mean, I don't think that's a credible response for the United States. It's just not possible, given a host of different reasons. But I think they're struggling to figure out just where they can make a difference. I think the United States alone won't make a difference. I think that's the key. I think they recognize you can have targeted sanctions and those are important to put a little pressure on the families and the generals and such and move away, you know, take away some of the assistance aid that we provide to the government. But we don't have the kind of leverage that even we may have had five years ago because, in some ways, over the past five years we've just, it's atrophied in various reasons. But other allies and partners do and I think we have to light a fire under them. If there is a very strong international reaction that spans major Asian countries in particular. ASEAN would be ideal. We can't get ASEAN, but I mean, again, we can get some of ASEAN. But if you can get, I mean, if we can turn the screws on some of them. Indonesia is is taking a lead now with Singapore. Again, Japan, India. I think the key is having almost an international civil disobedience. Don't contribute to the government. You know, I would take the lead of what the people are doing. They're saying we're not going to contribute or act like this is a legitimate government. And I would suppose we should take that lead in saying, well, then Japan you don't give assistance to the government. You freeze all of that. You don't give assistance to the peace process, you know, to the military or to any of these processes because they're not legitimate. Just kind of force them to a point where they can't govern, they can't do anything, and show not just the substantive impact of that, but the symbolic impact of countries that before have never done this now saying this is a new day. It is not business usual. We are going to shut this down. We will not accept this. And then quietly, I hope, get Japanese who have individuals with good relations with the military and maybe use them. You know, US and Japan, get India along to have quiet conversations with people, starting with the Commander in Chief to say let me play this out for you. This is not going to go well, this is not good for your interests, and start explaining all the ways that you're not going to get the money you want, you're not gonna get the power you want, your sovereign independence is going to be affected. If you want a balanced foreign policy, you're not gonna get it. You're gonna have to rely countries you don't wanna rely on. Let's find a way out. And that's the best way 'cause they're used to being isolated. They're used to being sanctioned, but maybe not by all these countries and in the ways and with engagement that can potentially try to change their calculation on what's ongoing. Because issues like, you know, invasion and such, I think that's just, it's just not going to happen, I think. I don't wanna go into all the reasons, but it just won't.
Tarek Masoud: Pwint Htun, there's a lot of interest in the chat and in the Q and A in thinking, you know, as citizens, how can both overseas Myanmar people, but also just interested Americans and other world citizens contribute to this effort? So Derek Mitchell has mentioned some pressure that can be put on US officials, but is there an international decision-making by decision-makers. But is there anything else that you would suggest for people of goodwill who want to put their thumb on the scale in favor of democracy in Myanmar?
Pwint Htun: Absolutely. There's been phenomenal work that has been done by independent media and civil society leaders inside the country who are organizing and doing whatever they can to support these civilians, civil servants who are participating and partaking in this civil disobedience movement. Please support them in any way. There are many great organization that are doing phenomenal work providing housing emergency. I mean, one of the most touching photos that I've seen recently is a couple of photos of fruit sellers selling tomatoes on the side of the street, saying if you are a Civil Disobedience Movement participant and doesn't have the money, please feel free to take the tomatoes from me. And that is this incredible generosity of spirit that I've always love about the people of Myanmar. And it is the best part of the country is this incredible generosity and kindness that I'm seeing that this challenge is bringing out the worst of humanity and at the same time the best of humanity all at the same time. So I would really urge people who are interested in standing with the CDM movement to do what you can to support these organizations and the independent media.
Tarek Masoud: You know, we only have a couple of minutes left before we have to conclude, but I wonder if I might get both of you, and, Pwint, maybe we could start with you, to just tell our audience what we should expect or look for in the coming days. Where are the protests now? What are prospects for success? What are the things that we should keep our eyes and ears open for?
Pwint Htun: At the moment with these nightly internet outages, the military is trying to crack down the, you know, over the last couple of nights, they have the military and the police have attacked the railroad workers in the middle of the night. There's been a crackdown in various smaller townships where the media isn't as strong. So the people who are courageously leading the CDM movement hope that whoever is left over and still going to the government for this will join the CDM movement and really halt the entire mechanism of the government and taking away the legitimacy of the government altogether, or so-called the government altogether. So our hope is that we will see everything standing still to a point that there might be some people within the military who can see clearly that all this work that they're doing to oppress millions of people is all for the sake of one man's ego. And that there would be people within the military who can see that their task is to protect the country, put the country before one egotistical person. So that's kind of where our hope is at this point. And one thing that I would like to leave with is, you know, Aung Sun Suu Kyi has written a lot about Nehru and Gandhi. And she wrote that in her book, "Freedom From Fear," that Gandhi's greatest legacy is in instilling courage in the people of Indiana. And I think Aung Sun Suu Kyi's one legacy is that she has instilled courage in the people of Myanmar, and I think that is gonna be one important legacy for the country moving forward. That we have fearless multi-generations that these people will never take democracy for granted ever again in the future.
Tarek Masoud: Thank you, Pwint Htun. That was very inspiring. Derek Mitchell, any last comments on what we might expect?
Derek Mitchell: Well, in fact, I know we're right at one o'clock and I'd rather not have the last word after what Pwint just said. I think that's a great way to end. There are a lot of things that I'm looking for when I worry about going forward, but let me just end it where Pwint did, which is let's, the people... The one thing I learned as ambassador, the one thing that is remarkable, and it's discovered by everybody who travels there and meets the Burmese in Myanmar all over, is just how special the people are. And how, I think there was a survey of the two most generous countries, in fact. It was the US and Myanmar who give most. But the people of Myanmar, they want their dignity and freedom. They are not going to, they're very proud, they're very stubborn. They will not give up. But the challenge is how do you get the stubborn military to recognize that they're in the way and figure out a way that they can step back from this and find a new way. There's no doubt that within the military there are other ideas, but they are blocked by the current Commander in Chief. So I hope we can get past this point without violence, further violence, and get back on track so all of us can help Myanmar achieve the goals that they want for themselves. And I just want to, again, say how honored I am to be on the same panel as Pwint and I thank the Ash Center for the opportunity.
Tarek Masoud: Thank you so much, Derek. And I think what I take from both your comments and from Pwint Htun comments are that this is a difficult moment. There are, there's a great deal of peril, but there is also some reasons for cautious optimism. The foremost among them being the character of the Myanmar people for whom we are all, I think, rooting. So we are now at the end of our time. I want to thank Pwint Htun and Derek Mitchell for joining us and providing us their insight and expertise. I also would like to thank the team at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation: Melissa D'Anello, Julianne Crescimanno, and Sarah Gruzca for organizing this event and pulling it off so seamlessly. And I want to thank all of you in our audience for your really tremendous questions. I apologize for not being able to get to all of them, but, of course, this is just the beginning of the conversation. Thank you all.
[Music]
Presenter: You've been listening to AshCast, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation's podcast. If you'd like to learn more, please visit ash.harvard.edu or follow the Ash Center on social media @harvardash.
[Music]