Thread by @the_ayeminthant

This 🧵is partially a response to the open letters that have been posted recently and partially some things that didn’t make it into my most recent article. As is often the case, there was so much more information gathered than there was room on the page

There are a number of claims being made in the above letter and this one, and also a request that the article be taken down. I’ll do my best to address each of these points and explain why the article will not be taken down below.

https://twitter.com/jonnymgkaung/status/1438075672660832259

The letters claim I 1) don’t understand what’s happening on the ground 2) am trying to discredit Dr. Sasa and Mr. LeQuieu 3) violated confidentiality 4) put people at risk 5) misrepresented Marc’s teachings 6) claimed the NUG/PDFs support terrorism & 7) am writing in a biased way

Claim 1: I actually spend most of my waking hours thinking about Myanmar and interacting with people in the country. Not only is it my literal job, but it’s where most of my friends and family are. It’s a home I left very reluctantly, and only because I knew I was a target.

1.1: Of course, I can’t claim to know the visceral experience and feelings of those who have made the decision to pick up weapons and protect their communities, but I did speak to meeting attendees who are currently fighting and they are quoted in the article.

1.2: I understand that non-violence is not the only option, but what I was hoping to highlight with the article is that there is a difference between strategic advice given by qualified experts and random people who insert themselves into Myanmar conflicts.

1.3: The outside world is offering very little to Myanmar right now other than pretty words, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who offers help is actually going to be helpful.

Claim 2: Dr. Sasa chose to join and speak at that meeting. Then his office chose to send legal threats to try and suppress information about what he, as a public official, was doing. The open letter talks about human rights, but the right to information is a foundational one

2.1: I noted in the article that Sasa only attended part of a meeting and did not claim that Dr. Sasa knew what was being taught. But as a public government official, he has a responsibility to check who he is associating with and how his words will be taken.

2.2: People have also questioned the timing of the article. It was actually supposed to come out in June, but kept being delayed because of the campaign to stop the story. So if the timing is inconvenient for the people in the article, that’s a result of their own actions.

2.3: The original draft was also almost entirely focused on LeQuieu. The focusing on Sasa was honestly not added until people began trying to pressure me through my ex, my former Reuters colleagues, my friends - just everyone in my life - which then became its own story.

2.4: But speaking of LeQuieu, many of the people who attended these meetings told me they did so because they believed LeQuieu had extensive CIA and military experience. Everything I found in my investigation pointed to this being either a lie or a gross exaggeration.

2.5: If any of the advice LeQuieu gave was actually helpful and helped people, that’s great, but he also said some very questionable things. People are risking their lives right now, they should at least do so with accurate information.

https://twitter.com/the_ayeminthant/status/1438460222876667905

Claim 3: All the confidentiality stuff is addressed at the link below, but in summary, confidentiality is based on an agreement, and I never made any agreements of confidentiality with anyone mentioned in the article. (newnaratif.com/new-naratif-re…)

3.1: The claim that we were asked not to make records of the meetings is false, 4 of the calls I attended were recorded by the host on Zoom, and some of the invitation messages on Signal stated that people should be ready to take notes to share with those who were not present.

Claim 4: The editors and I spent a lot of time discussing the issue of risk to the participants and sources. It’s part of why no meeting attendee other than LeQuieu, who lives in the US, and Dr. Sasa, who is a public figure, are named.

4.1: The anonymous sources chose to speak to me and were identified by only the level of detail they felt comfortable with, and we made multiple accommodations at their request.

4.2: At the end of the day, these meetings were accessible through a Zoom link that was being passed around on Signal. They didn’t require registration or any kind of password to get in. Most people attended with pseudonyms and their cameras turned off.

4.3: While journalists do have a responsibility to minimize risk for vulnerable people, these meetings were essentially an open secret and were being attended anonymously by dozens. People also need to take responsibility for their own safety.

4.4: The story was delayed for almost 3 months because of the pressure campaign to stop it, so if unmentioned attendees felt that they had compromised their safety by attending the meeting, there was time for them to address it well before the publishing date.

Claim 5: The article never claims that LeQuieu only taught people to do violence. The article mentions the various things he taught. It also literally ends with a quote from him stating that he wants to spread love and also show people how to defend themselves.

Claim 6: There are no claims in the article that the NUG or PDFs support terrorism. That term is only mentioned 3 times, and all three times were brought up by the people quoted in the article.

6.1: Terrorism is mentioned by a fighter explaining why though he chose armed resistance he is not a terrorist,
by an expert saying the Tatmadaw has declared the NUG a terrorist organization, and by LeQuieu while giving advice.

Claim 7: I'll admit I'm biased - all of us are. We all bring our beliefs and life experiences into how we see and understand things. No article is ever going to include every possible fact and every possible perspective. I don’t try to be objective so much as fair.

7.1: I attended nearly 20 hours of these meetings and conducted interviews with many attendees. I did my best to be fair and to provide context and allowed people the right of reply. Journalism is an imperfect tool, but I did conduct myself within its bounds.

7.2: At the end of the day, I believe that when using violence, there is a spectrum of tools available, but if we want to continue be the moral party, some things have to be off limits. For me personally, that means not using indiscriminate weapons or endangering civilians.

I hope all this thread addresses the points raised in these letters and gives some insights into why this story (which can now also be read in Burmese) will remain published. newnaratif.com/my/dr-sasa-vis…