How many people predicted the surreal decampment to Pyinmana? Did anyone see the writing on the wall for Khin Nyunt and his seemingly untouchable cabal of military intelligence officers in 2004? Understanding Burma should not be viewed as a "speculative art" or "crystal ball gazing", as some observers claim, but a serious pursuit of knowledge, analysis and public debate.

Outside Burma there are hundreds of groups and individuals who pursue understanding of the country for various advocacy, academic and journalistic pursuits. Yet they are regularly derided, belittled or dismissed by some observers as "exiles", "outsiders" and other sorts of ill-informed, emotive loudmouths. People with regular access or long-term residency in Burma's main city Rangoon are often heard dismissing the work or knowledge of people who are denied or avoid "legal" entry into the country. They reject such work as ill-formed and lacking the nuance necessary for a deep understanding of Burma.

This is what is often called the "insiders and outsiders" debate. Foreign "insiders" profess specialised and long-term experience of events within Burma. They talk of regular access to urban and rural elites, generals and bankers, diplomats and business leaders. This is enviable exposure. But how much do they really know? When looking at the quantity and quality of open information, published research and debate, the "outsiders" appear to be doing much better. Why isn't the domestically generated analysis more voluminous, and to be blunt, better?

The reasons for this dearth of inside knowledge must emerge from one of two factors: either the "insiders" don't know or they're not telling. Not knowing, let's call it ignorance, shouldn't be discounted. Travel restrictions in Burma by the authorities limit many diplomats, business people and aid workers, or they are discouraged by minders from talking to people too much when they travel. The new guidelines written by the SPDC for international non-governmental agencies (INGOs) place further limits on not just travel and project implementation, but also the personnel INGOs are permitted to employ to work inside the country.

There are many "insiders" who talk about free travel within the country, but it's never clear how unfettered this is, or why free travel should be seen as such a victorious point to make. It's a basic freedom, isn't it, not to mention a necessity for project monitoring? Not many foreigners choose to travel to places that would make the regime unhappy either, particularly in the conflict zones of the borderlands or sites of internal displacement.

Ignorance is also perpetuated by the dismissal of externally generated information. Many "insiders" and scholars I've spoken to openly dismiss the published (and often free) work of, for example, the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG), Shan Herald Agency for News (SHAN), and refuse to rely on the consistently accurate reporting of The Irrawaddy magazine and other exiled news agencies such as Mizzima and Narinjara. Meticulously compiled reports on internal displacement by the Thai-Burma Border Consortium (TBBC) or on political prisoners by the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners in Burma (AAPPB) are also rarely utilised, as are many grass-roots generated reports on narcotics or dams that challenge the elite's assumptions of what is really happening.

The problem with much analysis on the country is that it privileges information that supports preconceived ideological standpoints. Not telling, or failing to publish or informally alert other observers, could be seen as the product of ignorance: no one wants others to realise that they are in fact ignorant. But failing to tell is also part of an ideological decision to avoid exiled groups and opposition figures, a result of paranoia about how "inside" knowledge could be misconstrued, and a genuine need to exercise discretion.

The work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) demands impartiality, and even United Nations agencies need to remain neutral. Yet these two bodies also promote the idea of free societies and international norms of behaviour, one of which involves open information. More could be done in promoting information about conditions inside. Some observers from inside talk constructively and truthfully about trends and occasionally request discretion in using it, but others freely share information and opinions. It's not difficult.

As theorists of authoritarianism will point out, a surveillance society works on the assumption that fear will produce self-regulation, and more people will act as if they are being watched and listened to, even if they're not. Foreigners are not immune to this, and it provides a simple excuse for inaction and silence to preserve position and interests. It must also be said, given the "expatriate" condition everywhere, that some foreigners in Burma don't care too much about average people, and so don't bother to know.

Another missed point is that the work produced "outside", such as those I have listed above, will provide part of the basis for a domestic civil society, media and NGO environment in a freer Burma in the future. Most "outside" work is generated by people from Burma, including from the gamut of ethnic groups, concerned about the "inside". Why do many "insiders" ignore such basic logic?

If all people agree that the polarised nature of debates is counterproductive, then work should start on bridging the gap, and more should be published in the open in place of the immature tunnel diplomacy that currently passes for "dialogue". The ideal type of analyst, consultant or researcher is one who works "inside" and "outside", and seeks to understand both realms. Burma is after all, one country, and perpetuating its divisions through ignoring its many complexities makes for bland, light and unhealthy reading.

David Scott Mathieson is a PhD student at the Australian National University.

David Scott Mathieson

Special to The Nation