Burma as the new Bosnia

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

/* 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.