Dr. Ashley South has been conducting research in Myanmar for 30 years, focusing on ethnic nationalities, conflict, language and politics. His most recent book, “Conflict, Complexity and Climate Change: Emergent Federal Systems in Post-Coup Myanmar,” examines the links between climate change and conflict in Myanmar. Dr. South recently discussed his research with The Irrawaddy. The wide-ranging interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Your most recent book focuses on the links between climate change and conflict in Myanmar. Can you explain how these issues are interconnected?
Yes, those are the two main themes of the book. The first part of the book looks at the meaning of federalism and self-determination in Myanmar after the coup. The challenge of federalism and self-determination following the coup is how to build a new Myanmar, how to federate and build a new Myanmar from the bottom up, based on the ethnic nationalities and self-determination of communities, for example, through local people administrative bodies in places like Sagaing and Magwe regions.
The challenge of self-determination has been a focus of ethnic nationalities in Myanmar for many decades. But now, after the coup, it’s really got a new energy, I think, and a new momentum for building federalism from the bottom up. That’s the first part of the book.
And then the second part of the book looks at the politics of climate change. I begin by outlining the impacts that we can already see in Myanmar and the projections for future impacts. Mostly, that means increases in temperature, which are already being noticed in many areas, particularly in low-lying areas. For example, in the dry zone of Myanmar, we are likely to see very significant increases in temperature over the next decade.
What other impacts can we expect? How fast will they arrive, and what will the consequences be?
Farmers are beginning to notice temperature increases already, and it seems likely that within 10 years, maybe less, there will be very serious impacts on food production and maybe this will drive quite large-scale forced migration.
Increasing temperatures are one impact. In coastal areas, we will also see rising sea levels and that can include salination of rice growing areas, for example in the Ayeyarwaddy delta … making it difficult to grow rice.
And then the other impact of climate change is flooding. We already see that roughly the same amount of rain is falling every year. But it’s falling in a shorter period of time and also more unpredictably. So, for farmers, it’s very difficult to know when they should plant their crops, and when they should harvest … because of the changing rainfall pattern. And because the rain is falling in a shorter period, we get widespread flooding, which also has a … a very serious impact on a country like Myanmar which is very dependent on agriculture.
The next step when we link climate change issues and politics is “what can and should political authorities be doing?” And here is where we’re looking at adaptation and mitigation.
Adaptation activities really need to be led by farmers. This is about how farmers, how communities and how political authorities can change their practices and behavior to adapt to climate change. That could mean using new varieties of rice, different planting techniques and maybe introducing different types of dam and water technologies to try and limit and control flooding.
The final part of the book looks at mitigation. This is the role forests play in carbon draw-down, taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, putting it under the ground and replacing it with oxygen.
We know that protecting forests and reforestation activities are really very cost-effective ways of mitigating climate change and reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We also know that the best-remaining forests in mainland Southeast Asia are in Myanmar, and particularly in upland ethnic nationality-populated parts of the country. And so, I think, really for the first time in history, political authorities and communities in upland areas have a globally important role to play by protecting the natural heritage, the forest. They can contribute to mitigating climate change and reducing climate change locally, but also globally.
You have been focusing on federalism, ethnic minority rights and self-determination. You’ve written extensively on this. When did you get interested in the link between climate change and conflict?
I started thinking more about climate change before the military coup. While traveling in conflict-affected areas, I was beginning to better see how rice and other harvests are affected by climate change.
And then the coup really brought to the front of my understanding the important roles local ethnic nationalities and other political authorities play in resisting the junta, as well as the need for sustainable funding.
Historically, ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) have relied on logging and mining, which has been quite destructive. I think several of Myanmar’s EAOs now have a more responsible attitude towards the environment and a better understanding of these issues.
But where will they get the income to feed people, pay teachers, and buy the weapons they need to defend themselves against the junta if they cannot get income from forests and mining?
We have recently seen the controversy around income from casino activities. In some parts of Myanmar, groups get income from taxing drug production. If none of these options are available or appropriate, it seems to me that a more sustainable and more ethical way of financing anti-junta resistance is by recognizing the important role ethnic nationalities and other opposition forces play in protecting globally important assets like the forests of Myanmar.
If they protect these forests, they will have to forgo income from logging and mining, so in exchange, I think the international community has a responsibility to provide funding, to provide payments, to keep the trees in the ground, which is a massive contribution towards climate-change mitigation globally.
How can we focus on protecting forests instead of fighting when Myanmar is a war zone?
This is something a number of people have said to me when I discussed these issues with political leaders from EAOs and People’s Defense Forces (PDFS). It’s difficult to prioritize longer-term issues of forest conservation and climate change, when the EAOs and PDFs are fighting for survival.
I can understand there are issues of prioritization here, but it seems to me that PDFs and EAOs need each other to defeat the military, to build a new Myanmar and working together can include consideration of these important natural resources, which are so much part of the lived realities and culture of the ethnic nationalities. They are also part of Myanmar’s natural resources’ contribution globally towards climate change. So, I think there is a common agenda on these issues.
We are in such a crucial period of anti-junta resistance now. It’s extraordinary, particularly since the launch of Operation 1027. Since last year, we have seen resistance forces defeat the Myanmar army on the battlefield repeatedly.
There are huge air strikes now being launched not only against resistance forces, but against civilian communities. Across the Sittaung River valley, across Karenni, there are hundreds of abandoned and deserted villages where the Myanmar Army and air forces have been striking civilians, not just against armed groups.
So, in that context, there is an urgent need to defeat the junta, and there are many different strategies which can be used.
I think at a minimum what is required for humanitarian protection is anti-drone technology, which should urgently be provided to anti-junta forces. More than that, I think what they really need is proper air defense systems.
And that support is needed right now.
I think there is a basic justice call for greater support for anti-junta forces.
Would you justify your call for international support for the resistance so that it can defeat the junta as a climate justice action?
Yes. If we’re serious about protecting the forests to mitigate climate change, then we need to support the authorities and the communities that live in and protect those forests. And there are a number of way of doing that.
There’s a great need for basic humanitarian assistance, also support for refugees and healthcare for displaced people. There is a long list of needs. But I think the most effective way of supporting the groups that are trying to protect forests and trying to defeat the junta is by providing defense against air strikes. That would mean direct military support to EAOs and PDFs to shorten the civil war and protect communities and forests from attack.
Why military support? I think the conflict is in the balance right now, particularly if we look at developments in Karenni State and the Sittaung River valley. They are quite close to Naypyitaw. Further to the north, the huge achievements of Brotherhood Alliance are very significant as well, but maybe a little bit further away from Naypyitaw.
I think with a bit of luck, the right strategies, and the right support, anti-junta forces can succeed in Myanmar. But the biggest thing holding them back is the terrible air strikes and drone attacks, which not only impact fighting forces but also civilian communities.
It seems to me – although I’m not a military expert – that this is the time for a fairly modest package of direct military support to PDFs and particularly EAOs because they have a well-established chain of command that makes them maybe more reliable militarily. The right kind of support could really inhibit the Myanmar army’s ability to use air strikes against anti-junta forces and civilians. But it needs to happen now.
It’s no good having debates for the next couple of years … action is required soon. Probably relatively modest in terms of the actual inputs, but of course this would require political decision-making.
Myanmar is not an industrialized country. We’re not among the nations that created climate change, but as you said, we could be part of the solution. In what specific ways can Myanmar be part of the solution to climate change globally?
Myanmar has done so little to contribute to climate change, not really being an industrialized country, but it is highly vulnerable to the impact of climate change. So, it is very unfair. Myanmar shouldn’t suffer this way. The impacts of climate change in Myanmar are going to get much, much worse.
Around the world, governments are now increasingly taking climate change seriously. But of course, the junta in Myanmar is killing citizens and issuing new mining and logging concessions, rather than addressing the issue.
I think the biggest contribution Myanmar can make is through the conservation of forests. Most of the best-remaining forests in Myanmar are in upland ethnic nationality areas. The best-remaining forests in mainland Southeast Asia are in Myanmar, in these ethnic areas … all the way from the Arakan Yomas, up through Sagaing, Kachin, parts of Shan State, Karenni, Karen, Tanintharyi, part of Mon State even. Really important forests are still remaining. By protecting these forests, we can help to support carbon drawdown which will slow climate change globally.
That means, Myanmar – particularly in ethnic areas – has globally important contributions to make towards climate change mitigation. I think that is probably the first thing.
In addition to protecting forests, reforestation is very important. This is easy to say but not so easy to do in a war zone. Nevertheless, in many of the areas I’ve been describing, EAOs organizations are increasingly aware of the issues and some have started impressive reforestation initiatives, including indigenous communities.
There are many very active civil society organizations (CSOs) that are very well-developed in many of the areas I have been talking about. So, I think this is the area where EAOs can create the policy and security environment and work in partnership with communities and CSOs.
CSOs working together with the community have such an important role to play in sustaining and supporting indigenous lifestyles which are quite sustainable environmentally and this is very much part of the heritage of ethnic communities.
Together, we can create more green places and rehabilitate the green land of the world.
The international community is not as interested in Myanmar as it is in the crises in Ukraine and Gaza. For climate change, how important is it for Myanmar to have international support?
Yes, Myanmar does seem to be a forgotten conflict. I think there’s an important geopolitical dimension. So, I hope that some Western countries will be interested in Myanmar as part of the global context when we think about the relationship with China for example.
In terms of the politics of climate change, yes this would be an important message of the book and the advocacy that I am trying to promote, which is to point out the role that Myanmar can play in mitigating climate change. Myanmar can be part of the solution to climate change, but not under the State Administration Council (the name the junta uses for itself.)
But that means that we have to support responsible and progressive authorities that are actually interested in protecting the forests and in addressing climate change, such as some EAOs, PDFs and others.
I fear that if the military junta is able to continue in power, we will see the rapid destruction of Myanmar’s natural resources, and that will have terrible impacts on climate change mitigation. It would be bad not only for Myanmar, but for Southeast Asia and the world.
How much concern is there that Myanmar will be unable to protect and preserve its natural resources?
Oh, it’s a huge concern. I think for the junta, they need cash. They don’t seem to care about the long-term well-being of Myanmar. We can see by looking at their actions. So, I have very little hope that the junta can be part of the solution.
EAOs, historically, don’t have a great record on natural resource management, I think it is fair to say. There have been a lot of destructive logging and mining activities in EAO-controlled areas. I think that is beginning to shift. It’s difficult to address natural resource governance because they are fighting an existential war for survival. They need resources, which is part of my call for better international support.
But the leaders of groups that I know better, such as the Kachin Independence Organization and Karen National Union, the Karenni State Consultative Council, the New Mon State Party and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army … I think all of these groups are moving towards having a much better understanding of these issues.
I think that the political leaders of several EAOs understand the need for forest conservation, both for cultural reasons – because this is the heart of heritage for ethnic communities – but also for the political, community, environmental and economic reasons that I mentioned. I do see a shift and I see a greater awareness and greater political commitment by some of those EAOs to take climate change and natural resources governance more seriously.
It has to be done, of course, in partnership with CSOs and communities. And still there are many examples of unsustainable, negative, destructive practices. But I think it is moving in the right direction.
Do you see Myanmar as ready for bottom-up federalism?
Yes, I do. Part of the problem before the coup was that much of the work on federalism was very top-down. There was an emphasis on designing the constitution and implementing the perfect constitution. I think that is a bit naive or at least a very top-down process.
I think the building blocks of federalism are there already. Look at the Karen context, we have Kawthoolei Forest Department, which maybe 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when I started working on the border, was more of a logging operation.
Now it’s been transformed into a community-based natural conservation organization and is one department of the Karen National Union (KNU). We can see that in other sectors as well. For example, the education system, the KNU education department, the Karen Education and Culture Department (KECD) administers about 1,200 schools and more than 100,000 children go to KNU schools, using the KECD mother-tongue based multilingual education curriculum. So, this is a locally designed and locally owned and delivered education system following international best practices.
And I think that’s a really strong example of components of federalism – in this case in the fields of forest management and education – which then can be built on as we see the emergence of federalism as a bottom-up system. (If we support the right building blocks, the emergent federal system will be resilient.)
If we look at the Kachin context, the forest and environmental conservation department of the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) previously had fairly limited capacity. They have done a lot of work in the last few years to develop strategies and skills, and a strong commitment to community-based forest management. We see this is something emerging in the Kachin area.
Likewise, the KIO education department has an increasingly large number of schools under their administration using a Kachin local language curriculum. So, this is another example of the emergent federal system in the fields of natural resources management and education. I think these systems are the building blocks of the new federalism in Myanmar.
Prior to the coup, the central government and most international actors were not very interested in these developments. They really were most interested in supporting the National League for Democracy government to reform from the center, from the top down.
But there is no longer a legitimate, legal, or even barely effective central government in Myanmar. I think actually this is a time of great opportunity for the re-emergence of federal systems from the bottom up.
Bottom-up mobility can be used in peacebuilding or in conflict transformation. Do you think federalism and the preservation of natural resources like forests can help in conflict transformation so that a peaceful society can be achieved in Myanmar?
There are a few parts to the answer. I think it’s partly about identity, particularly for ethnic nationalities. The forest is so much part of the lived traditions of their cultures. By preserving the forest, this addresses issues which ethnic stakeholders have long been concerned about in Myanmar, which is the attack on their identity and their autonomy. Supporting natural resource management at a local level can help to support local identities and local autonomy.
It’s also about sustainability. So, if we have a top-down approach to forest management, such as the SAC and the previous Myanmar government had, where the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation would declare an area to be a protective area, even though it might actually not be under the central government’s authority. This is an abuse of local people’s rights – especially if the area is under the control of an EAO and the local community living there.
That type of top-down approach causes a great deal of distrust and can be seen as really a way of trying to control and assimilate previously autonomous ethnic areas.
But if we can build natural resource governance from the bottom up, I think it addresses the concerns of ethnic communities. And also, if there is functioning governance at the ground level in the field of natural resources, but also in the field of education it will be another example.
Then, even if the union-level system breaks down – which happened in Myanmar after the coup – the local systems can continue to function. So, I think it’s also a way of supporting resilience.
And I think if we look at complexity theory – which is the kind of theoretical underpinning my book – the argument there is that the higher-level functions, such as union-level government in the field of politics, are much more likely to be sustainable and to survive long term if the building blocks at the ground level are solid.
So, by supporting local education systems and local natural resource management systems, we can contribute towards a more sustainable approach to federalism in Myanmar. I think that is very important for peacebuilding long term because it gives communities a sense of ownership and a stake in politics, and we hope for the future peace process as well.
It’s partly about inclusion. I think without inclusion, Myanmar is always going to face difficulties in achieving any kind of political consensus because of the great ethnic and other forms of diversity that exist in the country.
I can’t say that climate change action is going to address all the problems. I think that taking seriously the issue of inclusion in forest management is a contribution towards making sure that minorities within a minority, for example, don’t feel alienated. And in terms of your question, I think it can contribute long-term to peacebuilding.