Yes, peace and justice are under armed assault, and need to be defended with armed force. I am careful to label ethnic administrations as Ethnic Homeland Governments, since armed defense is only one of their functions, between education, health care, law enforcement, and others. I think it helps legitimize them as worthy recipients of international support. The UN, ASEAN, and others love to portray the ethnics as simply parties to a multi-sided domestic conflict without moral distinctions among them. It is up to the principals, and to people like us, to correct that mis-characterization.
Unfortunately the military junta would rather destroy the beautiful country of Burma (Myanmar) and rule by force than to give the citizens peace and justice!. The generals must be banished especially Min Aung Hlaing
"Over the following days, I came to realize that I was seeing a new form of community-based activism. While the KNDF was more of a revolutionary movement than a structured military force, a new type of civil society was also emerging; a civilian soldiery involved in military operations as well as providing assistance to vulnerable communities, all with noncombatant support from the general population."
"The more I encountered these young civil society activists and understood their logic, the more I wondered if this blurring of roles was inherent to any popular resistance against the all-out tactics of an oppressive regime."
"I am not sure the extent to which this paradigm shift is understood outside Myanmar. There is an opportunity here to help shape the future of Myanmar. Of course, the international donor community is afraid that acknowledging and working with the emerging governance structures will contribute to breaking apart the country."
"What I found in Karenni is an opportunity for the U.N. to become relevant. Were it to find the courage to assume a leadership role among the international community, there exists on the ground a real network of effective civil leaders and organizations with which to collaborate that would make a disproportionately positive impact on the country’s future."
Your point about "Ethnic Armed Organisations’ health and education departments may be incorrectly viewed as ‘national NGOs’ - rather than as revolutionary bodies. This distortion of Ethnic Armed Organisation political mandates risks de-politicising long-standing struggles for justice and self-determination. Another example of the anti-politics machine at work" is a good one.
INGOs push them into boxes as national NGOs, because that is the gox they have. Not because it reflects what happens on the ground. It also assumes away the fact that amaking decisions about priorities in educational curriculum, and health care are political, not only technical.
The core of the Myanmar issues is one of political legitimacy, which emerges from a people who believe they share a destiny. When this is present, you can introduce development and technical experts who can address technical details.
Unfortunately, though "destiny-sharing" is not a technical problem, but a political one. So far as I can tell, this basic political problem has never been addressed in Burma. Making it more difficult is that such destiny sharing cannot be imported from outside, but has to be developed through trust within. In Burma, the children of the Tatmadaw will need to trust the children of the NUG, and the EROS, and vice versa. This trust is extraordinarily difficult after decades of war, and will emerge only as the children of former protagonists begin to first identify common goals, and then act slowly to achieve them.
The process of compromise is typically rushed when JPF; USAID; UKAID, BRI, etc., step in and say that the problem is simply one if administrative systems, engineering capacity, business practices, agricultural practice, health services, and the range of technical services they are pretty good at. The push is to push the developmentalism, which can mean temporarily burying issues of political legitimacy in the interest of meeting technical goals, like KPIs. This is fine, but the fact is that what is today "Myanmar" has never had the internal legitimacy to support the many technical dreams. This is why Ferguson calls the problem of such "developmentalism" an "Anti-politics Machine." It is because politics and legitimacy are precede development, not the other way around. And in the post-colonial world, it is fortunately no longer legitimate for outsider to take it over.
Unfortunately, simply recognizing the limits of outsiders like Ashley (and me) in the post-colonial world does not provide and easy answer about what policies outsiders can adopt that are helpful in Myanmar. But it does point to the limitations of the current donor-oriented politics machine.
Yes, peace and justice are under armed assault, and need to be defended with armed force. I am careful to label ethnic administrations as Ethnic Homeland Governments, since armed defense is only one of their functions, between education, health care, law enforcement, and others. I think it helps legitimize them as worthy recipients of international support. The UN, ASEAN, and others love to portray the ethnics as simply parties to a multi-sided domestic conflict without moral distinctions among them. It is up to the principals, and to people like us, to correct that mis-characterization.
I agree there can be no peace without justice!
Unfortunately the military junta would rather destroy the beautiful country of Burma (Myanmar) and rule by force than to give the citizens peace and justice!. The generals must be banished especially Min Aung Hlaing
I agree Pam.
No peace without justice!
Thanks Josh. I did have Hugo Slim's conceptvin mind.
also brings to mind Hugo Slim's concept of "humanitarian resistance" (which I'd first stumbled upon in use in relation to Myanmar, ha).
edit: just read ur latest piece & saw you indeed refer to "humanitarian resistance". 😅
Charles Petrie's 2024 Noema piece also feels apt:
"Over the following days, I came to realize that I was seeing a new form of community-based activism. While the KNDF was more of a revolutionary movement than a structured military force, a new type of civil society was also emerging; a civilian soldiery involved in military operations as well as providing assistance to vulnerable communities, all with noncombatant support from the general population."
"The more I encountered these young civil society activists and understood their logic, the more I wondered if this blurring of roles was inherent to any popular resistance against the all-out tactics of an oppressive regime."
"I am not sure the extent to which this paradigm shift is understood outside Myanmar. There is an opportunity here to help shape the future of Myanmar. Of course, the international donor community is afraid that acknowledging and working with the emerging governance structures will contribute to breaking apart the country."
"What I found in Karenni is an opportunity for the U.N. to become relevant. Were it to find the courage to assume a leadership role among the international community, there exists on the ground a real network of effective civil leaders and organizations with which to collaborate that would make a disproportionately positive impact on the country’s future."
Your point about "Ethnic Armed Organisations’ health and education departments may be incorrectly viewed as ‘national NGOs’ - rather than as revolutionary bodies. This distortion of Ethnic Armed Organisation political mandates risks de-politicising long-standing struggles for justice and self-determination. Another example of the anti-politics machine at work" is a good one.
INGOs push them into boxes as national NGOs, because that is the gox they have. Not because it reflects what happens on the ground. It also assumes away the fact that amaking decisions about priorities in educational curriculum, and health care are political, not only technical.
Right.
Although to be fair, some donors and international partners are much better than others.
The core of the Myanmar issues is one of political legitimacy, which emerges from a people who believe they share a destiny. When this is present, you can introduce development and technical experts who can address technical details.
Unfortunately, though "destiny-sharing" is not a technical problem, but a political one. So far as I can tell, this basic political problem has never been addressed in Burma. Making it more difficult is that such destiny sharing cannot be imported from outside, but has to be developed through trust within. In Burma, the children of the Tatmadaw will need to trust the children of the NUG, and the EROS, and vice versa. This trust is extraordinarily difficult after decades of war, and will emerge only as the children of former protagonists begin to first identify common goals, and then act slowly to achieve them.
The process of compromise is typically rushed when JPF; USAID; UKAID, BRI, etc., step in and say that the problem is simply one if administrative systems, engineering capacity, business practices, agricultural practice, health services, and the range of technical services they are pretty good at. The push is to push the developmentalism, which can mean temporarily burying issues of political legitimacy in the interest of meeting technical goals, like KPIs. This is fine, but the fact is that what is today "Myanmar" has never had the internal legitimacy to support the many technical dreams. This is why Ferguson calls the problem of such "developmentalism" an "Anti-politics Machine." It is because politics and legitimacy are precede development, not the other way around. And in the post-colonial world, it is fortunately no longer legitimate for outsider to take it over.
Unfortunately, simply recognizing the limits of outsiders like Ashley (and me) in the post-colonial world does not provide and easy answer about what policies outsiders can adopt that are helpful in Myanmar. But it does point to the limitations of the current donor-oriented politics machine.
Thanks Tony. These are among the reasons I think we are witnessing a "post-Myanmar turn" - challenging the “assumption of Myanmar”.