Episode #242: The situation at the Myanmar-India border exemplifies the intersection of regional geopolitics, ethnic dynamics, and national security concerns. Angshuman Choudhury, a policy analyst, emphasizes that the northeast region of India, with its proximity and historical ties to Myanmar, plays a pivotal role in India's strategic calculus. The border, stretching 1,640 kilometers, is not just a line on a map, but a space of significant ethnic and cultural interaction that impacts local and national policies.

India's relationship with Myanmar is a pragmatic one, influenced by security concerns over insurgent groups finding refuge in Myanmar and the broader geopolitical landscape marked by China's growing influence. Choudhury notes that the Indian government’s Act East policy and investments in border infrastructure underscore an ambition to integrate its northeast region more closely with Southeast Asia, positioning it as a gateway to further economic and strategic opportunities.

However, the influx of refugees from Myanmar following the coup in 2021 has complicated this goal, highlighting internal policy contradictions. Choudhury notes that while Mizoram's government has shown humanitarian support for refugees because of its ethnic ties and local sentiment, the federal government has taken a more cautious approach, revealing a tension between regional and national security priorities.

In essence, Choudhury points out how the dynamics at the Myanmar-India border illustrate how local ethnic relations, national security policies, and international strategic interests converge, creating a complex tapestry that has both immediate and long-term implications for the region.

“As far as Myanmar is concerned, there is almost an across the board consensus [in New Delhi] that ‘we've got to play safe.’ There is an understanding that we need political stability in Myanmar in order to ensure economic development and economic relationship with India, and also to prevent the spillover of the conflict into northeast India,” he says. “In fact, in that sense, there is a bipartisan consensus between India's ruling party and opposition parties over this issue.”

Episode #241: “When we look back now, it's easier to look at that [transition] period darkly and dismiss it and say it was kind of a mirage,” says Timothy McLaughlin. “I do think there was there was were some real things happening and definitely benefits. Was it equal across the board? Of course not. And was it halting? Yes, for sure.”

McLaughlin, a seasoned journalist, begins by highlighting the initial optimism and significant economic changes that took place during this transition period, such as the telecom revolution and banking reforms, which provided tangible benefits despite the overarching political uncertainties and sporadic violence. He then critiques US policy towards Myanmar at that time, suggesting that the Obama administration’s early attempts were genuine but ultimately superficial. The initial post-coup U.S. response, he also argues, was performative and lacked substantial impact, revealing a broader issue with the efficacy of sanctions. He points out the problematic relationship between U.S. actions and the complex dynamics of Myanmar's geopolitical environment, particularly the role of China and regional actors like ASEAN and Thailand.

The discussion also touches on the significant humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, emphasizing the need for more innovative and localized approaches to aid distribution. McLaughlin underscores the frustration and sense of abandonment felt by the Myanmar people, contrasting the international community's initial enthusiasm with its subsequent apathy post-coup.

“Myanmar is not going back to what it was,” he says. “What it is in the future, we obviously don't know. But I don't think it's going back to what it was in 2012, or the 2003 era. Something fundamentally is changing here, and it's going to take a while for that all to be seen and sorted. Unfortunately, it's probably going to mean more lost lives and destruction. But I do think that something different is going to emerge from all this.”

Episode #240: Isabel Todd, speaking on behalf of the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar (SAC-M), provides a profound insight into the current situation in Myanmar, focusing on the country's struggle for justice and human rights amidst ongoing military atrocities.

A critical aspect of Todd's discussion is the international community's response to the crisis in Myanmar, or rather, the lack thereof. Despite the clear evidence of genocidal atrocities committed by the military against the Rohingya, and the ongoing human rights violations since the coup, ensuring accountability and justice still seem far off. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have roles to play, but their capacities are limited by jurisdictional challenges and political complexities.

Todd emphasizes the importance of continued pressure on the international community to act decisively against the Myanmar military. She highlights the efforts of the SAC-M in advocating for the prosecution of military leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This advocacy extends to urging the ICC to expand its limited investigation and for the international community to uphold its responsibility to protect vulnerable populations in Myanmar.

“It's so important to look at this beyond purely military terms, because this isn't a civil war. This is an uprising!” she says. “It's a revolution to rebuild what Myanmar is, and that's already happening! The sort of foundations of the federal democracy that will be established in the future, are already being built at that community and township level. This is an uprising that people are willing to happen, and there are acts of resistance that are taking place every day that aren't necessarily seen, but what's very clear as people are actively opposed to the junta.”