Abstract
Since gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, Burma has been faced with “the dilemma of national unity”. 1 This dilemma has continued through all three successive periods of modern Burmese history: parliamentary democracy (1948-1962), military-socialist (one-party) rule (1962-1988) and renewed military rule under the SLORC/ SPDC regime (from 1988 to this day). What began with an armed insurrection by the Communist Party in March 1948 and with the rebellion of the Karen National Union in January 1949 ended in a protracted conflict in which nearly all the ethnic groups of Burma fought for some degree of autonomy or independence. Although the military government has signed ceasefire agreements with seventeen ethnic groups since 1989, the eastern part of Burma/ Myanmar is still plagued by low-intensity conflict and armed fighting.
Josef Silverstein (1980), Burmese politics: the dilemma of national unity, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
One consequence of these protracted conflicts is ongoing human rights abuses such as forced labour, political persecution and sexual abuse, with a huge number of refugees being created as a result. Since September 1988, when the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) came to power, approximately one million Burmese nationals have fled to neighbouring states – either out of sheer economic necessity or for political reasons.
According to the Thailand Burma Border Consortium's (TBBC) conservative estimate, around 500,000 people in eastern Burma/ Myanmar (Shan, Karen, Karenni, and Mon state) are thought to be internally displaced persons. The number of refugees in camps in Thailand has risen from little more than 20,000 in the mid-1980s to nearly 200,000 (or more; the number is hard to track) and is continuing to grow. From time to time, the destiny of Burmese refugees is highlighted in the press, as in January when 400 Rohingya refugees were prevented from entering Thai waters and forced to return to Burma/ Myanmar by the Thai Navy.
This issue of the Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs (JCSAA) covers various aspects of the country's refugee problem, its political and economic implications and the consequences it has for the international community. In his article, Stephen Hull criticizes the elite-level focus and top-down model of the current humanitarian-assistance debates; these leave out the “everyday politics” and resistance of farmers and local villagers, who continue to resist and claim their rights. His article examines the displacement patterns in Karen State and village-level resistance. Hull concludes that IDP-protection mandates are inevitably political as the agencies involved must either support or undermine the resistance of rural villagers. Efforts to address human-rights abuses at a local level are crucial opportunities for external engagement amidst an otherwise restrictive political environment.
In her article, Inge Brees assesses the impact of transnational refugee networks on peace-building and development in Burma/ Myanmar. According to Brees, the effect that transnational migrants have is a mixed one: while financial remittances may have an important role to play in poverty reduction, they are unable to improve the disastrous economic situation. Moreover, the significant out-migration that has occurred is transforming the social fabric of households and communities inside. Despite the lobbying achievements in terms of sanctions and Western company withdrawals from Burma/ Myanmar, the political diaspora so far has not achieved any more tangible influence on the political situation than the opposition inside the country. Brees shows that there is currently not much evidence of economic, social or political transformation as a result of transnational activities. She also calls for further field research in what seems to be an expanding research topic.
Susan Banki has attempted to assess the impact of aid withdrawal from Burma/ Myanmar since 1988. Banki shows that there is a clear correlation between the withdrawal of aid and increased refugee populations, yet there is no causality since the crisis happened within the context of a contested government preceding the outflow. Banki then discusses three possible ways in which aid can support or restrain oppressive regimes: firstly, external legitimation; secondly, creation of group divisions in society; and thirdly, resource reinforcement. With regard to external legitimation, she concludes that the external legitimacy of the regime was sustained by a combination of regional, strategic, and economic factors, which were actually strengthened after Burma's acceptance in ASEAN in 1997. Speaking about internal group divisions, she argues that these are ongoing and the regime has exploited them effectively to maintain its grip on power. The most visible rift within an ethnic group is the divide amongst the Karen. Altogether, the three regime-reinforcing phenomena discussed have not diminished since aid to Burma/ Myanmar was decreased.
“Burma” or “Myanmar” - What's in a Name?
The State Law and Order Protection Council (SLORC) decided in 1989 to change the name of the country to the Union of Myanmar. “Myanmar” is the spelling of the official name of the country in Burmese script, the full term of which is Myanmar Naingandaw. The military claimed that this was ethnically a more neutral term and would lead to greater harmony amongst the nation's diverse ethnic groups. Many of the geographic names used in English were changed to conform to the indigenous spelling; Rangoon, for example, became Yangon.
Although the Burmese name of the country has included Myanmar ever since independence in 1948, some organizations (including Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD) prefer the spoken name of Burma and still use it in English. Because the change in the country's name came in the wake of the 1988 coup, this has given rise to a division between the nominalists – those who consider the names of countries a matter of arbitrariness – and realists (those who give country names a meaning). This division not only runs through the country, but also through the international community. While the United Nations, ASEAN, China, India, and Japan have chosen to be nominalists, the United States of America, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have decided to join the realists in order to emphasize their denial of the ruling junta's legitimacy. Normally, the Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs’ commitment to scientific objectivity would place us in the nominalist camp, but in deference to the convictions of our contributors, we sometimes use the term “Burma” and sometimes “Myanmar”; we even use “Myanmar/ Burma” on occasion (the European Union's solution).
Dr. Marco Bünte is a Senior Research Fellow and also co-editor of Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs.