Episode #291: Rage Against the Dying Light
Release Date: December 13
“The defeat of the SAC is just the first step in a very complicated journey”, says Charles Petrie, a diplomat and humanitarian with over 20 years of experience in the United Nations. His career has focused on conflict and post-conflict situations in Africa and the Middle East, and he was the UN representative in Myanmar from 2003 to 2007 and later returned to facilitate peace dialogues in 2012. In this podcast, he speaks about his experience in the United Nations, his journey to the Karenni States, his opinions on the current situation, and the future of Myanmar’s spring revolution.
Charles begins by sharing some of his extensive background, which included dealing with rebels and humanitarian crises. Perhaps most impactful for him was his experience during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Witnessing the horror there left a deep and lasting impression on him, as he saw unrestrained violence driven by political motives and ethnic hatred. This pushed him to understand the roots of such atrocities, which in turn shaped his career, motivating him to work in other conflict zones, including Sudan and Somalia.
Charles argues that policymakers and the media often oversimplify conflicts in their analysis, leading to misinterpretations of the true nature of the social tensions that give rise to them. “It's a lazy approach,” he says, noting that they often understand violence as being a direct outcome of those tensions, as opposed to being a result of political actions that exploit them. He emphasizes that this oversimplification—especially the tendency to label groups as "good guys" and "bad guys"--is due to a lack of intellectual rigor and a preference for easy narratives. Charles also criticizes the media’s predilection for adhering to conventional Western wisdom rather than digging more deeply into issues and understanding the dynamics of conflicts on their own terms. He used to believe the press is consistently independent and objective, and that there will always be justice in the end… but he has learned that is not the case. “[An independent press and justice] are not a given,” he exclaims. “If you want them, you have to fight for them, and you have to stand up for them as an individual.”.
Charles was working with the UN in Myanmar during the 2007 Saffron Revolution. When the military violently suppressed the protests, he ignored UN protocol and gave a speech on the Myanmar crisis, which was very clearly outside of the topic of global warming that the UN had assigned him, and he urged officials to listen to the protesting monks. This drew mixed reactions within the UN, and though Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon supported him, his speech ultimately caused his expulsion from the country. Charles was replaced by another UN representative who later built positive relations with the military, sidelining those who supported Charles’ stance.
Charles critiques UN leaders who avoid challenging oppressive regimes. He notes a division within the organization: one faction sees it as an administrative body, while the other views it as a promoter of its Charter principles. “The higher you go in the system, the more you develop this sort of realpolitik approach to states and to international world order,” he observes. The UN’s hierarchical structure, influenced by powerful member states—particularly the Permanent Five (P5)--discourages risk-taking, creating what he calls a “golden cage” for staff, with its substantial perks and job security.
Yet despite these criticisms, Charles defends the UN in the end, firmly reminding us that “the United Nations is not pointless.” Formed in response to two world wars, the organization aimed to prevent national interests from dominating global agendas. However, he warns that the organization’s relevance is at risk if powerful nations continue to prioritize self-interest over multilateralism.
Charles next addresses the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. He explains that initially, it was crafted as a tool to help protect civilian populations from atrocities; however, the post-Cold War focus on intervention rather than prevention led to mistrust from non-Western countries, who saw R2P merely as a tool of Western dominance. He describes how R2P was allowed to be inaccurately portrayed, becoming sort of a “fairy tale” for Myanmar’s youth, who thought it guaranteed intervention. “For me, the sadness [of seeing] these young CDMers raising the R2P banners was the fact that there were many Western politicians and government officials who were also invoking R2P, [all the while knowing] that there would be no intervention.”
Charles believes the UN failed Myanmar during the 2021 coup, noting that engagement was absent during that critical period. “The UN country team in Myanmar was basically orphaned,” he says. He criticizes the UN’s lack of decisive action in crisis situations like Myanmar, which he attributes to systemic issues, based on his experience reviewing the UN's failures in Sri Lanka for Ban Ki-moon. There were also similar issues during the 2017 Rohingya crisis. He stresses that the UN must prioritize civilian protection, and assign a senior official to manage crises. The organization’s systemic failures in this regard, Charles believes, are undermining the UN’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis in Myanmar. Nonetheless, he says simply, “We have to save the UN.” He believes that collective action is needed to realign the UN with its own, stated, moral obligations. In spite of the UN’s challenges and failings, for Charles, the UN offers hope in a chaotic world.
Charles also expresses disappointment over the UN’s perceived double standards, such as its different responses to the recent crises in Ukraine and Gaza; while the UN passed a resolution demanding that Russia withdraw from Ukrainian territory, it did not do the same about Israel’s incursion into Gaza. He criticizes the Secretary General for not invoking Article 99 in December, 2023, to address the deteriorating situation in Gaza. Article 99 allows the UN Secretary General to bring a matter up him-/herself before the Security Council. Instead, the UN’s focus shifted solely and reactively to the humanitarian crisis there, likely due to pressure from powerful states. “It was a huge missed opportunity,” he reflects, noting that the UN’s moral leadership was again undermined.
Inspired by the actions of one Father Vieco during his time in Rwanda, Charles believes in holding to ideals even during dark times. He uses “fairy tale” in a different sense than he did previously regarding R2P to illustrate his underlying meaning. “I think, to have a ‘fairy tale institution’ like the UN is essential to help guide [the younger generation],” he says, emphasizing that the UN serves as a moral compass, especially for Gen Z activists in Myanmar.
Charles recounts his journey to the Myanmar-Thai border in 2023, where he initially went to help refugee friends in need of asylum. While there, he noticed two significant things: the lack of humanitarian aid reaching non-SAC-controlled areas, and the emergence of new, local governance. Intrigued by the governance shifts–particularly in Karenni under the Karenni States Consultative Council–he co-authored an article advocating for the international community to invest in these local systems. Despite positive responses from various governments that he talked with about supporting local governance in Karenni, he sensed the discussions were superficial and would quickly lose momentum once he left. So, he decided to investigate further, himself, by spending more time in Karenni.
Most striking to him were Generation Z activists, whose energy and commitment are reshaping Myanmar's socio-political landscape. He believes that this new generation is deeply interconnected not only within the country, but also with global movements. He quotes the words of young doctors he met there: “‘You need to understand that this is no longer a civil war. This is a revolution’, they told me. And you really got that sense which was really interesting to see.”
Yet there was more that he found there. “One of the interesting phenomenon that I saw in Karenni is the notion of a revolution, [that] means that everybody's involved in the revolution in different aspect To illustrate this, he describes Spring Hope, a group of young doctors from diverse ethnic backgrounds, mostly trained in Yangon and Mandalay, who have fled to Karenni. Despite repeated bombings forcing them deeper into the jungle, they continue setting up hospitals to treat the wounded. He saw that in Karenni, the revolutionary spirit engages everyone, with both locals and the diaspora funding support for fighters and displaced persons. He describes how, due to the risk of SAC forces discovering hospital locations through infiltrators or social media, the doctors there had to run two separate hospitals: one for fighters and prisoners, and another for civilians, ensuring safety for both patients and staff.
Charles explains that SAC deliberately also targets churches, makeshift clinics, markets, and schools to intimidate and subdue the population. He says that makeshift clinics avoid displaying the Red Cross sign as a means of identification, so as not to draw the military’s attention. “It's a blatant strategy of the SAC to target in order to break the spirit of the people. And that's not working,” he says simply. Not only do communities remain unified in resistance, SAC’s tactics have caused many Burmese donors both within the country and in the diaspora to target some of their funds to supporting fighters rather than solely aiding displaced civilians. This unity, Charles argues, marks the distinction between a civil war and a revolution. “A civil war is an insurgency. You can have people who stay out of the civil war,” he says, “But when you're in a revolution, it's everybody resisting this aggression.” At the same time, he emphasizes the importance of creating a stable and inclusive governance structure, and warns that without it, the people’s present solidarity may fade when SAC is defeated, and unresolved underlying tensions rise to the surface. “Setting up of this local governance structure is very important, because it needs to be in place to be able to manage these underlying tensions that are going to emerge afterwards.”
Charles describes a transformative shift in governance in Myanmar, particularly in Karenni. “What you have is a mosaic of much stronger, autonomous components [with] a bottom-up form of federalism, in contrast to the more top-down model that characterizes the NUG and many Western nations.” He adds that a new participatory model of local governance is emerging through structures like the Interim Executive Council (IEC) and KSCC. Local groups now provide essential services, as the central authority has lost its influence since the 2021 coup. Here Charles contrasts two competing visions for the future: one, favored by some Western donors and the NLD, aims to reestablish a central government; the other embraces autonomous, regional governance. He believes the latter is more realistic, as communities like Karenni have little incentive to expect a responsive central government. Instead, they are creating inclusive structures with open roles for various political and ethnic groups. He stresses that the NUG should think seriously about a decentralized structure that will work after the revolution, rather than trying to reestablish central power. “This is the moment for the NUG to try and investigate what could potentially be their role in a new Myanmar.”
Charles believes that the Karenni model is drawing interest from other regions and ethnic groups in the country, who see the benefits of a participatory, decentralized approach. As groups gain control of new territories, they recognize the need for civilian buy-in to establish legitimacy, especially in transitioning from a military-dominated administration. “There are some really interesting discussions between groups and the [Karenni] IEC is very open to try and share their experiences with the other groups,” he says. He believes that the IEC’s model offers a promising path toward more inclusive governance, and addresses potential, inter-ethnic tensions. He argues for a humble, non-imposing approach to peacebuilding and governance in Myanmar, one that respects local autonomy, which is taking precedence not only over centralized control, but attempts at imposing external models.
Drawing from past experiences, Charles describes how foreign mediators during the 2012-2015 ceasefire tried to do just that, undermining local efforts and disrupting the process by sending key local leaders to other countries for training in furthering the mediators’ agendas. He also warns that similar mistakes could be repeated if foreign groups condescendingly treat local structures just as “donor darlings,” rather than supporting their organic development. “These mediation groups [want to] claim ownership [in the process], because it's their way of getting funding,” he says. “My greatest fear is that we are going to be the instruments of screwing this up.”
Charles shifts to the complex dynamics around prisoners-of-war held by local armed groups in Myanmar. He notes that the capture and humane treatment of SAC prisoners by groups like the KNDF and the IEC demonstrate a moral high ground and commitment to standards, even as public enmity towards the SAC remains strong. But at the same time, he expresses concern over the growing violence and widespread availability of weapons across Myanmar. “The management of tensions is going to be a lot more difficult, because of this violence that's been introduced,” he says. The normalization of violence could pose challenges for maintaining moral authority in the revolutionary movement. With increased calls for the assassination of government administrators, it illustrates a potential loss of restraint. He mentions that a "small monster" of violence has been unleashed, which could complicate post-conflict governance and reconciliation.
Regarding the current situation in Karenni States, Charles is unsure whether they can be the first liberated state in Myanmar. Despite the KNDF’s partial control of the territory, there have been temporary withdrawals by resistance groups from some areas, such as Loikaw, due to SAC reinforcements and airstrikes. The fighting is ongoing.
Of course, life in Karenni States is not easy. However, despite the hardships, civilians in Karenni are adapting. “Life continues, but in a completely different way,” he notes. “I think [characterizing the situation in Karenni as unsustainable] is a slight misrepresentation of what's going on, because it implies that the people are just submissive and passive.” Goods continue to flow into Karenni State from Thailand and even some through SAC-controlled areas, though transport requires negotiation and additional payment. Charles notes that although daily life has been disrupted and trauma is widespread, people are resilient and actively finding ways to rebuild. However, he warns, “The moment when the economy is no longer able to sustain and support those in need of subsistence, then it is going to become catastrophic.” For now, a functioning, yet fragile economy exists, but those who remain displaced and destitute in remote jungles are heavily dependent on external aid. If the conflict drags on, the number of people in dire need could grow significantly, intensifying the crisis.
In conclusion, Charles delivers a powerful message of resilience and responsibility. He urges listeners to "never give up." He emphasizes that true resistance comes from individual commitment—not from relying solely on organizations, and that each person holds responsibility and can make a difference, even if the impact isn’t immediately visible.
If you found this interview insightful, consider the following past guests, who spoke on relevant topics:
· Anthony Davis argues that the conflict in Myanmar has reached the scale and intensity of a true revolution, driven largely by Myanmar's younger generations. He describes it as fundamentally transformative, reshaping the country at the social, political, and generational level. He criticizes the international community, particularly regional diplomats, for misunderstanding the situation, seeing it as a conventional conflict that can be resolved through negotiations among elites. Instead, he emphasizes that revolutionary dynamics cannot be contained or rolled back easily, stressing that Myanmar's people are determined to break from the oppressive military regime, a reality that the international community must recognize to respond effectively.
· Liam Scott, an expert on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), describes this UN policy as an international norm established to prevent atrocity crimes like genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. He explains that R2P relies on a country’s willingness and capacity to protect its own people, as well as on international support when a state fails. Despite its potential, he points out that R2P in Myanmar has fallen short, with calls from activists unmet and the international community failing to enforce meaningful interventions, leading Myanmar’s people to take the initiative to protect themselves.
· Khun Be Du, a Deputy Minister in the National Unity Government, organizes a cohesive resistance network, comprising battalions under the Karenni National Defense Force (KNDF) to protect local communities. His initiatives focus on providing essential resources, including food, medical supplies, and shelter, especially for those displaced by the ongoing conflict. Through his leadership, he aims to unify local and ethnic resistance groups, building a resilient community that not only resists military repression but lays the groundwork for a self-sustaining, democratic society.
· Saw Kapi is dedicated to building local governance structures that create a foundation for democratic administration in Myanmar, particularly in ethnic regions like Karenni, Karen, and Kachin. He is establishing programs that provide training in governance and public administration for local leaders, aiming to prepare civilians for roles traditionally held by military figures. Saw Kapi emphasizes the development of grassroots leadership that is accountable to the communities they serve, rather than to centralized, authoritarian powers. His efforts involve creating “third-tier,” local governance capable of addressing public needs, and that consults community members, and operates independent of military influence. This will lay the groundwork for a Federal Democratic Union.
· Isabel Todd, from the Special Advisory Council-Myanmar (SAC-M), criticizes the UN and the wider international community, saying they have failed Myanmar by not fulfilling their responsibilities, despite calls from the people for help under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. She asserts that this failure has left Myanmar’s citizens, especially those vulnerable to military violence, without the protection they desperately need, emphasizing that such global inaction has betrayed the hopes of people seeking justice and safety.