[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Burma as the new Bosnia
/* Written 12:28 PM Jul 27, 1996 by mbiddle@xxxxxxxxxx in igc:soc.cult.burma */
/* ---------- "Burma as the new Bosnia" ---------- */
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I normally do not post messages to this newsgroup, but recently I have
read several articles that I feel require some sort of response. It all
began with the former Prime Minister of Singapore stating that only the
Burmese military was able to unify the country. Recently, Thai officials
said they were afraid that if the military lost control, Burma would
disinigrate into another Bosnia. In addition, if SLORC collasped, China
and India would carve up Burma. It would be easy to dismiss these
comments as special pleading by leaders of countries with strong business
ties with Burma's military junta, but appears that this may become the
"official" ASEAN line to justify its policy with regards to Burma.
Consequently, I feel a rebuttal of this line of reasoning is in order.
To begin with, it would be more accurate that say that Bosnia has become
another Burma. It is laughable to see Thai and Singaporean leaders to
concerned with a possible ethnic conflict in Burma when the fact is that
there has been a civil war in Burma since 1948, well before the Bosnian
civil war. One wonders why the Thais in particular are suddenly so
concerned since they have aided many of the ethnic insurgents over the
years.
Of course, the main issue here is not the historical accuracy of the
analogy, but the underlying assumption that the Tatmadaw is the only
unifying force in Burma and that if SLORC is replaced by democracy the
country will slide into chaos. However, this assumption is also flawed.
As Maritn Smith pointed out, following the 1962 military coup, the pace
and scope of insurgency increased rather than decreased. The current
uneasy peace that prevails in Burma is due to the fact that the Tatmadaw
has finally been able to win the military struggle against its opponents,
but it still has not been able to politically unify the country.
In fact, I would argue that SLORC's continued control of the country
depends on creating disunity and divisions within the country. Despite
its proganda about the "Non-disengration of the Union", SLORC has in fact
done everything possible to encourage the balkanization of the country.
I base this observation on policies that SLORC has embarked upon since
its illegal seizure of power.
The most obvious example is the ceasefire agreements with the various
insurgent groups. SLORC has refused to negoiate with any umbrella
organizations thereby splitting the opposition. In addition, these
ceasefire agreements simply write off large chunks of territory from
central government control. For instance, I have been told that in the
territory controlled by the Wa, the kyat is not accepted. Instead people
use Chinese yuan or British colonial silver currency. Allowing a foreign
currency to replace the local curency is strange behavior for a regime
that is dedicated to preserving national unity. Furthermore, in
assigning territory to the insurgents, SLORC has created ethnic tensions.
SLORC has given the Kokang insurgents control of a Kachin-majority area
outside of Kokang. In addition, SLORC has given territory in the Mong
Hsu ruby mines to different ceasefire groups. While this might be
viewed as a case of sharing wealth, in actual practice it puts the former
insurgents in economic conflict and encourages them to think of their own
economic interest rather than national unity.
SLORC also seems to be fomenting internal conflicts by allowing a large
influx of immigrants from China. Almost all the Burmese I have talked to
in Thailand, the US or Burma have commented on this influx and deeply
resent it. Although this phenomenon has been widely commented on, it
does not seem to have been analyzed in great detail. In my own opinion,
this influx only makes sense as a policy of SLORC's to provide a
scapegoat in the future. Despite the fact that Burma is rich in natural
resources, the scale of the Chinese influx makes no sense economically.
China's economy is much better than Burma's. In almost all cases, people
move to a better economy rather than a poor one. There are undoubtably
numerous economic opportunities in Mexico, but very few US citizens are
crossing the Mexican border illegally. Unless there were special
incentives, I suspect that Chinese in Yunnan would try their luck in
Shanghai rather than Mandalay. In the Kachin State, non-Han minorities
from Yunnan have also been encouraged to move to Burma. Lisus who have
been displaced by dam projects in Yunnan have been settled around
Myitkyina with help from both the Chinese and Burmese government. These
new immgrants are loyal to SLORC and have been in conflict with the local
population, even with some of the local Lisus. Undoubtedly, this is what
SLORC wants since these local conflicts increase disunity among the
people and deflect anger from the military.
If I may digress a bit at this point, let me also suggest that ASEAN's
attempts to counter Chinese influence in Burma by means of "constructive
engagement" is also flawed. The simple fact is that SLORC rules by means
of the gun. Since China supplies SLORC with guns, China has the
ultimate influnce over SLORC's behavior. Unless someone else is willing
to supply guns to the brutal regime in Rangoon, no amount of investment
by ASEAN or Western countries will change SLORC, nor will it weaken
China's influence. If it has to choose between increased investment or
guns, SLORC will choose guns. It is simply a matter of survival.
Consequently, as long as the military controls Burma, China will continue
to "carve up" the country as the ASEAN countries fear. China's control
over SLORC was clearly recognized by a Burmese acquaintence of mine in
Rangoon who jokingly referred to SLORC as the "Chinese government" or the
"Sino-Burmese" government.
If anyone still doubts that SLORC continued control of the country
depends on divisiveness, they should consider the persecution of the
Rohingyas in 1992 or the SLORC-aided KNU/DBKA split. SLORC must continue
to foment conflict between ethnic and religious groups in Burma in order
to stay in power. If everyone else in the country is divided, then the
unified military, aided by its access to outside funds and political
support, is the strongest force in the country.
Actually the Bosnia anology might be appropriate. As I understand it,
the conflict in Bosnia was caused by power-hungry, self-serving men who
incited ethnic and religious conflict as a way of increasing their own
power. The outside world failed to react early to disastrous policies of
these individuals and in some cases actually aided them. By the time
anyone attempted to stop the carnage, it was too late. Those that truly
wise to avoid a repeat of Bosnia in Burma should do everything possible
to support the democratic forces in Burma rathter than support the
military that is sowing the seeds of discord.
I would welcome any response, comments or corrections to this piece.
However, I am using a friends computer and email account, so please be
sure to indicate that the response is for Aiontay, not Matt Biddle.