In asserting a sovereign Kawthoolei, the KNU posed a challenge that the Burmese state (indeed any state) could scarcely ignore. For Kawthoolei to be born, the old Burma would have to die — something which Burmese politicians (whatever their other differences) have always refused to countenance. As a result, the Karen have been fighting a Burmese state which not only possesses superior military capabilities, but which also enjoys the tacit support of a world of nation states anxious to avoid any alteration of political boundaries. Even western states which condemn the brutality of the Burmese State have refrained from sanctioning the alteration of Burma's boundaries. In this regard, the lack of international recognition for Kawthoolei over the past 50 years is eloquent testimony to the futility of Karen efforts to overcome the consensus over sovereignty issues among the community of nations. That alternative solidarity has been shown outside this community demonstrates the limits to internationalism among nation states.

Indeed, the fact that SLORC has been able to brutally suppress the Karen insurgency without serious opposition from any outside power is a reminder of the overwhelming priority that the international community continues to attach — even in the New World Order — to political sovereignty. In the process, the community sanctions environmental degradation and the persecution of ethnic minorities in the name of the right of nations to do as they please within internationally recognized boundaries. More often than not, ethnic minorities have been place in a no- win situation. Denied human rights by the rulers of nation states, ethnic minorities face impossible odds when they try to establish a sovereign state of their own. Current international rules established by nation states permit no way out of this vicious circle confronting ethnic minorities.

Selected References
(A version of this article appears in Howitt, R. with J. Connell and P. Hirsch (eds) Resource, Nations Indigenous Peoples: Case Studies from Australia, Melanesia and Southeast Asia, Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Amnesty International (1988) Burma: Extrajudicial Execution and Torture of Members of Ethnic Minorities, London: Amnesty International.
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities, revised ed., London: Verso.
Bryant, R. L. (1994) Shifting the Cultivator: The Politics of Teak Regeneration in Colonial Burma, Modem Asian Studies 28: 225-50
Fink, C. (1995) Human Rights Across Borders: Karen Experiences in Thailand and Burma, Burma Debate 1: 23-6.
Geary, K. (1994) The Role of Thailand in Forest Destruction Along the Thai-Burma Border 1988-1993, Bangkok: Project for Ecological Recovery.
Lieberman, V. S. (1978) Ethnic Policies in Eighteenth-century Burma, Modern Asian Studies, 12 (3): 455-82.
Perry, P. J. (1993) Military Rule in Burma: A Geographical Analysis, Crime, Law and Social Change, 19: 17-32.
Smeaton, D. M. (1887) The Loyal Karens of Burma, London: Kegan, Paul and Trench.
Smith, M. (I 991) Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity, London: Zed books.
Taylor, R. H. (1982) Perceptions of Ethnicity in the Politics of Burma, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 10: 7-22.
Tinker, H. (1957) The Union of Burma, London: Oxford University Press.