The Karen State of Kawthoolei has been heavily dependent on teak extraction to fund the Karen National Union struggle against the Burmese military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Raymond Bryant explores the social and economic structure of Kawthoolei, and the way in which resource extraction was more than simply a source of revenue — it was also an integral part of the assertion of Karen sovereignty.  

In late January 1995 the Karen National Union (KNU) suffered a major military defeat when Mannerplaw — its headquarters near the Thai-Burmese border since 1974 — was captured by the Burmese army. In subsequent days, KNU leaders fled to Thailand in a move that appeared to mark the end of the KNU's 47 year struggle against the Burmese State. As Mannerplaw (which means "Field of Victory") was reduced to ashes, so too were the hopes of those who believed in Kawthoolei — the Karen Free State proclaimed by KNU President Saw Baw U Gyi in June 1949. The world's longest-running insurgency had seemingly run its course.
Notwithstanding media coverage of Mannerplaw's capture, the KNU's struggle to establish Kawthoolei has gone largely unreported in the west. Writers have documented the political conflict and recent work highlights the human rights abuses perpetrated by an advancing Burmese army. In contrast, little is known about the socioeconomic characteristics of Kawthoolei — the ways in which a Karen state independent of the Burmese political economy for nearly 50 years was structured socially and economically.

Historical background

In order to understand the link between Karen forestry and sovereignty, the history of Karen forest use and management prior to 1949 needs to be reviewed. To appreciate this history in turn necessitates that the Karen's relationship with the region's ethnically predominant Burmese and Thai peoples also be understood.
Karen history is often portrayed as an ancient struggle between the Karen and the more powerful Burmese and Thai peoples. Yet the political and cultural significance attached to ethnicity is of comparatively recent origin. The construction of a Karen identity in Burma, for example, has been linked to the policies and practices of colonial officials and missionaries. Under British rule, a distinctive Karen identity developed as expressed through a separate language, education system and culture. Such was this "national awakening" that as colonial rule neared its end Karen leaders spoke of a Karen "nation" in search of its own state — as early as 1928 the Karen leader San C. Po had formulated such a demand. The British encouraged the development of a Karen identity, notably through preferential employment in the colonial state, but pointedly refused to entertain the idea of a separate Karen state.
On the contrary, colonial rule clarified the territorial limits of a Burma-dominated Burmese state. Hitherto fuzzy frontiers were replaced with precise borders that spatially defined "Burma" — a political entity sanctioned by international law. This mapping of Burma was repeated elsewhere in the region. Thus, in neighbouring Thailand, the Bangkok-based monarchy was able to similarly delineate its borders in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As the new political contours of the region were mapped, the Karen found themselves under the jurisdiction of states over which they had no control.