Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
As readers may be aware, I have recently been the subject of criticism in The Nation newspaper (in an article reproduced in The Irrawaddy). I have no desire to respond further to this attack on my report, Burma’s Longest War: anatomy of the Karen conflict.
I am writing to speak out against attacks on academic freedom. The assault on my own reputation was followed the next day by an article in Asia Times Online, personally criticising the eminent Burma/Myanmar scholar David Steinberg. These two articles represent an ugly (although not entirely new) development in what seems to be a campaign to suppress alternative views regarding Burma. Exiled political activists and their supporters are denigrating independent researchers who dare to challenge orthodox views and long-held assumptions regarding the political situation in Burma.
Given the dynamic and fast-changing situation in the country, it is important that a wide range of views are expressed and discussed. Of course, a vibrant debate between different viewpoints is necessary, and indeed healthy. However, I would like to make a plea that commentators focus on substantial issues, rather than descending into personal insults.
[http://www.ashleysouth.co.uk/. Image from Burma’s Longest War]
I wouldn’t worry about being criticized in The Nation, although it can occasionally have a good story it basically is a rag dripping with bias, take it a compliment.
Likewise as much as freedom of opinion should be encouraged, so should freedom of dissent. Readers with any modicum of intelligence can see the difference between a well thought out rebuttal and a personal attack, the latter being due to a lack of intelligent or objective counter-comment. Blogs are no different.
0
0
The Steinberg attack doesn’t seem to be trying to supress his views. I just see a jackass from HRW reading apples to be oranges, and then making an ad-hominem attack against a fruit that’s far more edifying than he is. Probably from an iPad. Don’t spill your Chiang Mai chai latte on it spluttering about doing nothing while doing nothing, Mathieson. Why worry about these people? They just reveal themselves to be myopic. Why are you giving them credit?
0
0
Quit your whining. You should be thrilled that your work was attacked. You got noticed after all. It’s called vigorous debate and this is part of your job description as a scholar/journalist/activist.
0
0
Those attacking on Mr. South do not represent Myanmar nor work for democracy. They are working for their own interest. The majority of the educated people, especially Barman knows these groups have been trying to downgrade the image of the country buy spreading spreading false news and made up stories.
They complained to UN and other world bodies as they want to get refugee status in developed countries.
The international communities neglected the fact that stories of rape, murders and torturing people are made up by these people and organizations. Most of these stories are fake.
0
0
I confess to knowing very little about what’s happening in Burma. But it is quite clear that both articles cited in Ashley South’s post criticized him. Denigrated if you like.
They did not threaten to jail him or kill him for his views.
S o, what’s the problem?
0
0
After reading (and then rereading) both Ashley South’s newest report and the op-ed piece by Naw Htoo Paw in the Nation, the first question that came to mind was why Naw Htoo Paw slipped into an vitriolic ad hominem argument so early on.
That is disappointing. Whether you agree with South’s recommendations on pg5 of the report or not, it would have been nicer to have read a polemic argument against what South has just published–something more point by point–and not against the man.
0
0
Re It’s Martino, I suspect Ashley South is taking the time to write about this because some of the people who are doing the attacking have influence in policy circles. I’ve kept abreast of the Burma debate in DC for years and have been shocked by what I’ve heard. If you listen to some of the prodemocracy lobbyists in DC, they all seem to believe that academics like Steinberg are actually working on behalf of the regime. So, it’s not quite that these people are “doing nothing,” but rather that they’re actually having a negative influence on policy by suppressing and denigrating other views.
0
0
looking at your C.V., Ashley, and looking at David Scott Mathieson’s… I’m surprised that you don’t have more respect for him than you do. Mathieson isn’t a partisan hack, and he isn’t a short-term intern at an NGO: he has produced substantive, detailed historical research. Both of you are unconventional, self-made scholars, who have published non-fiction dealing with the political history of Burma, and the conditions of slow-burning civil war in the region. If you can’t respect his contribution to the field, what can you respect? I’ve laid hands on a copy of Mathieson’s study of para-militarism in Thailand (not his other books)… I don’t think that anyone who has even flipped through this guy’s published work would venture comments such as those from Martino (above). I’m willing to assume that there are some employees of H.R.W. who approximate the Chiang-Mai-permanent-vacation-stereotype alluded to above –but Mathieson isn’t one of them.
I do not see anything “ugly” in the Asia Times article “criticising the eminent Burma/Myanmar scholar David Steinberg”; if he is eminent, that alone is a good reason to criticize him (it certainly doesn’t elevate him above criticism!). The article doesn’t provide citations, but it does quote specific passages, and offers direct criticism of Steinberg’s actual hypothesis (it isn’t a hatchet job, and it doesn’t fail to demonstrate that the reviewer carefully read and considered the source before denouncing it); as such, I can only behold it as a positive contribution to the field.
It isn’t an attack on academic freedom, nor on freedom of speech in any wise: you had the freedom to publish your work, and they had the freedom to publish a critique of your work. Employees of Human Rights Watch are not in a position to censor anyone, and are themselves frequent victims of censorship. However, as I say, Mathieson is hardly a typical employee of HRW; his publication record makes him exceptional, and distinguishes him as a research.
The review in The Nation is very poorly written, but that, also, does not entail censorship (nor “suppression”, as you say). Whenever I see someone denounced for being a “self-proclaimed expert”, I get the sense that I’m reading a hatchet job –and, even so, a hatchet job written against a tight deadline. It’s always poor form to criticize someone for their sense of entitlement to write a book, rather than criticizing the content of the book itself (and the article in The Nation is guilty of this); however, you’re quite wrong to say that either of these reviews is an attempt to “suppress” your work.
As Francis Bacon said it, the province of knowledge is ever a “Democratie”. You’re entitled to your opinion, and they’re entitled to denounce you for it. The nature of opinion is that we entitle ourselves.
0
0
This is a consistent problem that has been going on for a long time. Many of the exile groups think you are “against them” if you don’t fall in line with their solutions. Reasonable people can, and should, disagree about solutions and it is unfortunate that there are so many who wish to stifle debate. The issues in Burma are so incredibly complex that someone who thinks they know all the answers seems quite foolish.
0
0
Eisel Mazard,
The reason I criticise Mathieson is that he does precisely what he identifies as hypocrisy in his opening line. Mathieson writes “It’s a standard academic sleight of hand to win an argument by misrepresenting your opponents position.”
And then, for instance, proceeds to write:
Steinberg grudgingly concedes that “major human-rights violations [in Myanmar] … are apparent.” He then portrays the calls for their cessation and the push for an investigation as a “Western policy orthodoxy”. He argues that calls for enhanced sanctions measures and a UN formed Commission of Inquiry are “confrontational approaches” that seek to further isolate the new government.
When what Steinberg actually said was:
“Major human-rights violations and imprisonment of over two thousand prisoners for political reasons (even if titularly they were for “crimes”) are apparent. Without in any sense excusing the past or present governments, will this orthodox policy improve the conditions of the diverse Burmese peoples in that benighted country?”
How is this, in any way, a grudging concession?
Indeed, nobody’s suppressing anyone’s views. The orthodox have unsurprisingly reacted with orthodoxy! And South seems like he’s been thrown off the ox’s back, and is unflatteringly surprised despite being surrounded by human rights wasps lurking to sting anything that moves.
And, moving is precisely what I feel Steinberg and South are advocating for. Mathieson seems to be pro moving to utopia. To refer to Dom’s comment (thanks by the way), I think it takes someone to has worked in government, or at least some sense of utility (like Steinberg), to realize, that what’s best for Burma’s overall population is not to cling rigidly to an ideological righteousness over what happened in 1988, 1990 and 2007 – as though somehow reason will shine down and part the otherwise murky and ugly sea. Those clinging rigidly to righteousness do make themselves useful because they allows eminent figures like Steinberg, who I feel would have much more influence in policy circles, to argue with more pragmatic and rational weight.
And admittedly, I didn’t know the research backgrounds of South and Mathieson before you mentioned CV’s, Eisel. Perhaps they should write a book together. Even Aung San Suu Kyi is open to talks! http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21932
0
0
After reading the articles, I don’t see an attack on academic freedom. Rather I see a vigorous debate. Take it up.
0
0
Agreed with many comments above and hope Mr.Ashly could accepted these critism as complementary contributions. However, I have to admit that Naw Htoo Paw went a bit overboard while Methieson’s views came from a different angle which could not be easily dismissed as personal attack.
In the same time, I’m tired of people like ‘Zaw’ who insulated themselve from real facts to deny the existance of atrocities that happening in Burma. People like him would never accept the reality unless they have a position at the wrong end of a gun.
0
0
Ashley,
Given that you have previously insulted aid workers as only being interested in seeking a prize for career advancement, it seems hypocritical for you now to complain that criticism of your work is a threat to academic freedom! What goes around, comes around, so I hope you will follow your own advice and stick to the issues in future.
That means addressing the criticism that your analysis lacks proportionality with regards to the causes of (and hence solutions for) ongoing conflict and impoverishment.
regards,
duncan
0
0
Nice work it was a good read. Doubt those that criticize it even read the report.
Ignore the Nation, remember they reported Thaksin was dead. Needless to say, those reports were greatly exaggerated. It should go back to its old mission and just report the commings and goings of ships at port. Oh wait, internet communication made that obsolete so now they they just invent and print news that the advertisers would want to read if they could communicate in English.
0
0
… I anonymously apologise to Mathieson and South. I bow before them and kiss their feet! I am that chai latte drinker in Chiang Mai! I want an iPad… I want the prisoners to be free… Sunda, sunda, sunda….
best,
Martino
0
0
The failing orthodoxies or rather Hypocrisies of present prevailing voices:
1) Any ideas put forth, suggested or even whispered that IS NOT supportive of “Sanction does not hurt the most vulnerable within Myanmar most”.
2) Acceptance of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi IS NOT the only answer to present quagmire.
3) N. Korean_ization of Myanmar IS NOT happening.
Violation of any above falsehood and any associating Corollaries will bring about the vile retaliation.
Being in UK and not being pro DASSK aside
Mr Ashley and the like of Dr Steinberg should be proud to help contribute to the end of those falsehood.
0
0
The editorial in the Nation was hardly an ‘attack on academic freedom.’ Questioning the ethics, research method and conclusions of anyone who publishes is absolutely fair game, although the angry and personal tone was unfortunate.
And, regardless of one’s opinion of its quality, the Asia Times piece was a focused critique of an op-ed – not a person – which had been previously published on the same, non-academic, media website.
Connecting these two unrelated pieces of writing, and claiming a conspiracy to silence a certain category of perspectives and assault academic freedom, is either paranoid or tactical. Shifting (and polarizing) the discussion to the issue of academic freedom vs. censorship – and staking for himself moral high ground by identifying himself with ‘academic freedom’ – is strategic because it allows Mr. South to marginalize critique or disagreement as inherently without merit because they can be reduced to “attacks on academic freedom.” This approach also insulates him from actually having to respond to criticism, engage in debate or defend his own research and perspective on any substantive level.
It’s too bad that the tone of the editorial in the Nation seems to have derailed what might have been an interesting discussion. It would have been more interesting to log on to New Mandala to see an academic response by Mr. South to some of the actual criticisms raised in the article, instead of this.
0
0
The biggest contribution that A. South has made, and will not be lost to the critics and supporters alike will be:
This longest ongoing Bamar-Karen conflict is but an extreme microcosm in the context of Myanmar historically tragic anecdote.
Conveniently used 0r rather abused repeatedly by the west and military regimes of Myanmar, to justify the direct atrocities as well as 2┬║ sufferings of their respective actions, such as blind sanctions by the west and the 4 cuts strategy by the regime, that hurt the citizenry more, all without any reckoning by neither parties!
A. South is correct, when he boldly stated, for a different future that both side especially the parties that truly represent Karen must begin to participate in engagement with present government instead of enjoying the benefit of being a victim in the west, for this A. south is indeed unjustly vilified,
0
0
New Mandala encourages vigorous debate? South’s post looks like a rather pathetic attempt to silence debate, particularly criticism of his own work. Mathieson’s piece is hardly a threat to academic freedom, and while Naw Htoo Paw’s probably over-indulges in the ad hominem, it shouldn’t be a surprise – this community is a small one. So much feels, and often is, personal. The figure of the detached, comparatively if not completely dispassionate, consultant/expert – and it does seem valid to point out that this position is almost always incredibly well-funded, which raises a host of questions regarding influence, power, even inequality – should be very much open to critique, especially in a situation such as this. I find myself often sympathetic to criticisms of South and what he represents. Vigorous debate indeed – not to mention that the notion of threats to academic freedom is an entirely right-wing rhetoric in the US. Perhaps worth noting.
0
0
[…] a letter in the New Mandala blog-site implying that Htoo Paw’s article, and David Mathieson’s article in Asia Times, were an attack on academic […]
0
0