This event was held on October 5, 2024, exclusively for ISP Gabyin Community members. This English translation of the event’s recap memo was published on October 25, 2024. DVB broadcasts the recorded video with English subtitles of the live event on its channel regularly on Mondays and Wednesdays.
Greetings to all Gabyin members attending today’s program, 30 Minutes with the ISP. I am Ingyin May, your MC for today’s program. This is the fourth event of 30 Minutes with the ISP. Today’s discussion topic is “Making Data Speak: Capturing Conflicts and Human Security Agenda in Myanmar.”
The panelists are Kyaw Htet, Program Head of the Conflict, Peace & Security Program (CPSP), Zaw Htet, Program Officer (CPSP), and Pan Su, Program Associate (CPSP). After the panelists’ presentation, we will answer Gabyin members and attendees’ questions and remarks. In addition to asking live, questions can be sent via the chat function. If we could not answer live due to program limitations, we’ll answer these questions through email afterwards. The recorded video will be aired on DVB broadcasts, ISP-Myanmar websites, and social media.
Let’s begin the discussion. I’ll give the floor to the panelists.
Making Data Speak
Capturing Conflicts and Human Security Agenda in Myanmar
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to everyone attending today or watching the video. Our discussion will be divided into three sections. First, we’ll present some findings and the complexity of the current situation. Second, we’ll address the challenges we faced in conducting empirical data-based research. Finally, we’ll share the perspectives and viewpoints that shaped our research and discussions. I will discuss the first section.
After the military coup, our country has descended into chaos. In response, we, at ISP-Myanmar, initiated the Conflict Data Program. According to the data collected, armed conflict broke out in 187 out of 330 townships in Myanmar since the coup to December 2022. As of August 2024, conflict has expanded to 236 townships. The number of conflicts is rising into tens of thousands nationwide and when we look at the number of armed groups, it was just over 20 before the coup, but surged to over 700 and systematic research indicates that approximately 500 armed organizations are there in Myanmar. At the same time, the dynamics of these conflicts are constantly shifting. When we examine the Myanmar Armed Forces (MAF), it has lost at least 100 Light Infantry Battalions (LIBs). When we look at the command chain, the MAF lost three Military Operation Commands (MOCs), one Regional Operations Commands (ROC) in Laukkai and recently, one Regional Military Command (RMC) in Lashio. In short, the data clearly indicates that the Myanmar Armed Forces (MAF) is losing. We have also previously reported on this.
These losses marked a historical defeat for the MAF. Moreover, all MAF’s Regional Operation Commands are the frontline one way or another. You can see it on this map. However, the MAF (SAC) does not seem to perceive it this way. Their top leader’s speech and talks only promote the narrative that resistance forces are undermining the stability of the state, the stability of the region. This shows that they cannot even acknowledge the defeats.
The situation is deeply complex. Every day, there is a plethora of news on conflict incidents and related news, presented in various forms, with various underlying purposes, combined with the intricate and complex realities on the ground, making it challenging for ordinary people to keep up. This also raises questions about how individuals, policymakers, and researchers like us can effectively make sense of the situation. Based on these questions and gaps, ISP-Myanmar conducts data-based analyses and studies the profiles of organizations and their leadership nature. We study their decision making calculus, their impulsive and willful decisions and behaviors or logical decisions through comparative case studies of examining the past events. So, our study examines both the behaviors and thought processes of conflict actors. This helps us understand the strategic thinking and tactics used in war and conflict. Now, Zaw Htet will talk about the challenges faced during our research process.
In this second section, I want to discuss the challenges encountered in conducting research. Doing research in a conflict environment comes with significant difficulties and challenges for researchers. We must carefully select methods and tools that are relevant to our research questions. Navigating the complexities of armed conflict is challenging. Setting a research framework based on academic theories, and determining how to collect data and then analyzing them effectively are all difficult tasks. Even after the analysis is completed and published, the main challenge for the researchers is the question of whether the findings truly reflect reality. For this section, I would like to talk about two key challenges.
The first challenge we face is in collecting data. When it comes to data, there are many research organizations studying conflict in Myanmar. Usually, the figures published by each organization vary from one another. This discrepancy generally arises from employing different methodologies. The other reason could be the different sources of data. Moreover, these sources themselves have various limitations, e.g. researchers must ensure to distinguish between reliable source and propaganda. Additionally, it’s very important to clearly define our own unit of study. For instance, how do we define a clash? When we talk about airstrikes, are we referring to the number of strikes, the number of bombs dropped, or the number of aircraft involved? Similarly, when we talk about internally displaced persons (IDPs), are we only referring to those in IDP camps? Based on these definitions, we must collect data consistently. Without clear definitions and a unified collection method, the quality of the research could be questioned. Moreover, it is crucial to validate the collected data by crosschecking it with other sources, for example, cross-checking with organizations that gather ground information and civil society organizations. What I have discussed so far is the challenge encountered in collecting the data.
Secondly, I would like to discuss about selecting appropriate research methods and tools. Once we have the data, it is essential to analyze them in various ways. Researchers will have their own research question they want to answer. And there is collected data. So, for every research organization, it is very important to select the appropriate research analysis methods and tools in order to effectively address the questions based on the collected data. At ISP-Myanmar, we utilize a range of methods and tools to analyze the data once we have collected and validated them. Our tools of analysis include examining different time periods through time series analysis, assessing conflict escalation by geo-location, and differentiating the types of conflict based on the actors involved. These methods help us categorize the conflicts, understand their processes, and evaluate their impacts. However, we still face certain limitations and challenges at this stage. For example, when creating conflict maps, sometimes situational constraints can make it difficult to obtain accurate legends and geo-location points. Although many organizations publish conflict figures, they do so in aggregate figures for multiple years or regional aggregates, which make it difficult to dissect shorter time span analysis or smaller units of analysis. Amid these challenges, ISP-Myanmar’s researchers strive to collect, validate, analyze and present the data to the best of their abilities.
I would like to summarize my discussion here. Myanmar’s current armed conflict is both intricate and far-reaching. To make sense of these complex realities for the public, we researchers must continually work to fully grasp our own research questions, maintain systematic data collection and storage, and choose the most effective research methods and tools.
Now, I’d like to invite Pan Su to discuss the next section.
In this third section, I’d like to focus on the human security of the conflict. ISP-Myanmar has consistently emphasized the importance of human security perspectives. The challenges faced by civilians are so immense that they resemble a mountain range. In the blink of an eye, people lose their families, live long savings earned through sweat and blood vanish into thin air. Countless cases of these are happening. While many celebrate victories in armed conflict against the dictatorship, the voices of those suffering in the chaos of war are often overshadowed. It is truly challenging to capture the full extent of the socio-economic hardships people are enduring. As we said in our concept note, documenting and reporting these issues are just the tip of an iceberg.
As Kyaw Htet and Zaw Htet discussed earlier, in our every research, we prioritize the benefit of community, social environment, and human security. National interest, economic profit, and power dynamics can sometimes be delayed due to timing and situational constraints. But, we cannot afford to delay matters that directly affect the survival, security and peace of the people, to let them sleep at night peacefully. In other words, living in daily fear is a violation of the most basic level of socio-economic security. When these violations persist over time, the survival of ordinary people becomes increasingly difficult. Therefore, as researchers, we must systematically study the impacts of armed conflict on individuals and their socio-economic challenges.
One of our current research projects, launched in November 2023, aims to assess security impacts across the country in three categories, with data collected and analyzed every three months. This research is developing three indexes related to conflict impacts. The first is the Security Risk Index, which measures the intensity of security risks associated with armed conflict in each township. The second is the Humanitarian Crises Index, which evaluates the severity of humanitarian crises in each area. For example, this index examines what percentage of IDPs constitutes the total population of a township and the index indicates whether that township is experiencing a humanitarian crisis or not. The third index is the Public Service Absence Index, which measures the extent of unavailable public services for the population.
Each index is rated using three levels: ‘High,’ ‘Low,’ and ‘Nil,’ and is represented in bar charts. Overall, our findings indicate that the frequency of ‘High’ ratings has increased with each assessment in all four previous studies. Each index reflects the level of security risk faced by the population, and the number of townships categorized as ‘High’ is particularly significant. Townships marked as ‘High’ raise serious concerns regarding security, humanitarian crises, and public services, as illustrated on the map. According to our latest data collected in August, 71 townships are classified as “High” in all three indexes. This number represents an increase compared to previous data. When we compare the data collected in February 2024 with that from May 2024, the difference is quite substantial. By August 2024, at least 71 townships are rated high risk, highlighting the level of security risks and challenges residents face in their communities. Could Kyaw Htet discuss the conclusion?
As we mentioned earlier, conducting research in the conflict environment is quite difficult and challenging for us researchers. Another critical point is the perspective and focus from which we will approach the research and the topic we will study.
ISP-Myanmar typically conducts research that hits three key sweet spots. First, our topics of research usually reflect current affairs and current issues. We want to address and solve the current issues rather than studying historical events. Second, we make sure our approaches are theoretically and methodologically informed. Zaw Htet has largely discussed this point. Third, rather than simply satisfying our curiosity, we aim to provide insights with policy implications. As Pan Su discussed, our aim is to address human security and socio-economic hardships, while providing policy recommendations and theory of change that could help Myanmar emerge from this chaotic situation.
Even with a systematic approach, there will always be limitations and blind spots. That is why we greatly value feedback and constructive criticism from others. We regularly review feedback on our ISP-Myanmar Facebook page and other social media platforms. When explaining these complex realities, we avoid discussing and reporting based on wishful thinking and we avoid portrayals that obscure the truth when explaining this complex situation. In presenting the results of our research, we consciously steer clear of binary thinking, dogmatic divisions, any ideological biases or indoctrination. Our task is to present the empirical data based findings, and to identify potential scenarios, and to provide policy recommendations. In this discussion, we want to showcase a glimpse of behind-the-scenes efforts that powered our research findings. I would like to conclude our presentation by highlighting how ISP-Myanmar’s researchers are striving to capture the armed conflict and various dimensions of human security while overcoming challenges and limitations.
Thank you, Kyaw Htet, Zaw Htet and Pan Su for the discussion. Next, we’d like to continue with the Q&A section. We’ve selected three common advanced questions received through email from our Gabyin members. The first question here asks:
“It is good to conduct research. However, some people said that ‘isn’t it better to conduct research for the resistance movement’s victory or research that supports the movement?’ What do you think about this statement?”
Generally, there are various types of research: exploratory research, inquiry research, confirmatory research, etc. It’s also crucial to consider who is conducting the research and for what purpose. For example, foreign governments have their own research teams and organizations, while political parties also maintain their own research units. The research they conduct typically aims to achieve certain goals, such as advancing their agendas, assessing their operations, or influencing policy making. As an independent, non-partisan, and non-governmental research organization, ISP-Myanmar conducts research in the interest of the public, aiming to highlight the public’s suffering.
Thank you, Zaw Htet, for your response. The second question is:
“Thank you for conducting research on conflict and socioeconomic hardship. Lately, I noticed that more organizations also use mappings to explain the conflict. How do ISP-Myanmar’s maps differ from them?”
Conducting research on various topics is a positive trend. At ISP-Myanmar, we do not assess the value of a study based solely on its subject matter. Like, this is an interesting topic to study or not interesting. Rather, we choose our research topics based on the theory of change that is relevant to helping our country emerge from the crisis. In this consideration, we prioritize human security and human dignity. Additionally, we study current leaders’ accountability and responsibility and focus on how to hold these leaders accountable and responsible for their actions. Moreover, as Kyaw Htet mentioned earlier, we focus on research topics that align with the three ‘sweet spots’ in our analysis.
Thank you, Pan Su, for your response. The third question is:
“After the capture of Lashio by the MNDAA and its allies, there are speculations of potential offensives toward Mandalay and Naypyitaw. How should we interpret these points?”
I think many people will be curious about this question. I would like to briefly answer this question. There are two key approaches to consider. The first is the strategic approach, considering the whole picture. The other is the operational approach, more concerned with the technical aspect. From a strategic perspective, we have previously pointed out that when the interests of China align with those of the conflict actors in Myanmar, developments can take place swiftly. Regarding the potential offensives toward Naypyitaw and Mandalay following the capture of Lashio, the crucial question is who would lead such offensives. It’s unlikely for the Three Brotherhood Alliance to take the lead in the offensive, due to political and strategic concerns, as China would likely disapprove of such an action. The MNDAA’s statement reflected this situation. However, they can be partially involved in the operational aspect. Although they may not lead the military campaign, it is highly likely that they may support local resistance forces in their operations. However, all these things still have many limitations.
Thank you, Kyaw Htet, for your response. We will now accept one question and one comment from the Gabyin members present today. If you would like to ask a question or provide feedback, please click the ‘Raise Hand’ button. Is there anyone who would like to ask a question? If not, I will address a question submitted through the chat box.
“Is the lack of unity among the resistance forces a result of their failure to represent the hardships faced by the people?”
According to research literature, there is no causal relationship between these two variables. The shifting dynamics of the revolution and the unity among resistance forces is one aspect, while the hardships faced by the people are another. As we discussed in our presentation, we focus on presenting human tragedy and human security perspective when we discuss our methodology and the challenges we encountered. The second point is the impact: the conflict’s impact on the people. To go back to the point, there is no correlation between the two. As armed conflict spreads, people face increasing socioeconomic hardships. This is also observed in many other cases around the world. I would like to conclude my brief answer here.
Thank you very much, Kyaw Htet for your answer. We are going to accept one more question or comment. There is one question asked in the chat. The question asked:
“Do you see any overarching grand strategy among the Bamar resistance forces and the non-Bamar ethnic resistance forces that go beyond strategies?”
After Operation 1027, it is evident that conflict actors are conducting operations by launching offensives and capturing territories based on their respective capacities. However, at the operational level, there is some degree of coordination among them. When we look at the strategic and political levels, there is still a lack of consensus on how to coexist or unite in a post-conflict future. Currently, conflict actors primarily focus on their own processes, so, we have not observed a grand strategy, as mentioned in the question.
Thank you, Kyaw Htet, for your response, and special thanks to Gabyin members for your questions. Before we conclude our program, would any of our panelists like to share their final thoughts or remarks?
Whenever we conduct research, we bear in mind that there will always be blind spots in our pursuit of the truth. Therefore, we exercise caution in relying on a single approach, ideology, or research method in our studies, discussions, and writings. We consistently consult and employ multiple perspectives and approaches. Additionally, other than the Conflict, Peace, and Security Program, ISP-Myanmar has various research programs including the China Studies Program, Socioeconomic Studies Program, and Governance Studies Program. We always work together among our different research programs. This collaborative approach allows us to analyze each topic from multiple angles. With that, I would like to conclude my discussion here.
Thank you. For the questions we could not answer live today, we’ll answer them in our Recap memo via email. You can also explore other research data, maps, and findings on ISP-Myanmar’s website at www.ispmyanmar.com and on our social media platforms. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all the members in attendance, and with that, I’ll conclude today’s program.
Appendix
This appendix includes responses to the questions we collected in advance of the event and the questions received via chat and Q&A buttons during the event.
How can we shape a democratic system in Myanmar setting to politically de-escalate conflict?
When discussing Myanmar’s armed conflict, it is often noted that the country has yet to complete its nation-building process. This issue is further complicated by successive military dictatorships, which has contributed to ongoing chaos. A central question remains over the time: should the priority be on democracy or the establishment of a federal union. Since the political reforms of the 2010s, the term “Federal Democratic Union” has gained traction, leading many to recognize the interconnectedness of federalism and democracy. Under this understanding, both federalism and democracy are seen as mutually dependent. The selection and implementation of a federal model should be a topic of discussion among conflict stakeholders. Political discussions should be made upon power-sharing arrangements between the federal and state governments, the number of states, collaborative security mechanisms, electoral systems, and parliamentary structures.
