Tom Laichas
What hope remains?
With a conflict in Burma coming to a close (or so it looks), one has to stop to wonder why the oppressive military dictatorship remains in power. Can we lay blame somewhere? Should the U.N. have done more for Burma? These are all pertinent questions which may or may not have adequate answers. Will Burma ever have independence from the Junta?
The Mon people were the first to arrive in Burma, and are suspected of having ruled Burma by the mid 900s. They were some of the first people to embrace Theravada Buddhism. Then the Tibeto-Burman Pyu arrived in the 1st century B.C. They created city states and traded actively with the Mon Kingdom. As the Pyu Kingdom fell apart in about 1044, another group who caled the Burman, or the Bamar, created their own Kingdom. King Anawrahta captured the Mon Kingdom and most of what is known as present day Burma; this Kingdom came to be known as Bagan as the capital was Bagan. The Bagan Kingdom adopted Theravada Buddhism. In the 13th century, as Bagan's power slowly faded, the Mongols led by Kublai Kahn took over the northern segment of Bagan and sacked the capital city. The Mongols didn't stay long; which led the Tai-Shan people from Yunnan to take over and become a major player in South East Asian politics. The Tai-Shan broke up the original Bagan Kingdom into several sections: 1. The Burman Kingdom of Ava or Innwa in upper Burma. 2.The Mon Kingdom of Hanthawady Pegu or Bago in the South. 3.The Rakhine Kingdom in the west. 4. Several states in the east and north-east. Realize now that all these Kingdoms and states were still under Shan rulers. These Kingdoms warred a lot (especially the Ava and Bago), but Buddhism did flourish in all the nations. In 1540, the Burman Kingdom of Taungoo under Tabinshwehti, reinforced by the Ava, defeated the Bago in the South. Tabinshwehti's successor, King Bayinnaug conquered upper Burma, Manipur, Shan states, Chiang Mai, Ayutthaya, and Lan Xang; putting most of south-east Asia under his control. Bayinnaug's death basically led to the end of the Empire and the loss of most of this territory for much of Burma. Rakhine forces, aided by Portugese mercenaries, ended up invading the Kingdom's capital Bago and taking the most important seaport Thanlynin. The Portuguese mercenaries overthrew the Rakhine government in Burma and created their own government. The Burmese were able to retake their kingdom from the Portuguese in 1611, rebuild their country, and remained steadily strong. Until 1648 when the kingdom went on an 100 year decline. The Mon, aided by the French, successfully rebelled in 1740 and took South Burma. Eventually they took over North Burma as well. The Konbaung dynasty formed, and lasted until the British invasion in in 1852. The Konbaung took over Siam numerous times (though they were also thrown out numerous times), resisted invasion attempts by China multiple times, and conquered Rakhine. In 1819, the Burmese annexed a kingdom called Assam, which put their adjacent to British East India. In 1824 the British attacked Burma and ended up taking large amounts of East Burman territory. In 1852, the British faced a much weaker Burma and took over most of Southern Burman provinces. In 1885, alarmed by the French's taking of Laos, the British invaded North Burma. The British occupation of Burma was interrupted multiple times by small coups and revolts which continuously failed. In the 1940s, Aung San created the Burman Independence Army to attempt to free Burma from British Rule. In 1947, Aung San became the Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council, but was assassinated soon after. In 1948, Burma became an independent Democratic nation. In 1962, the Democratic nation was toppled by a military coup d'etat. The current military rulers are called the Junta and came to power in a rebellion in 1988.
In 1990, two years after the Junta came to power, a promised Democratic Parliamentary election was to take place. The National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi (daughter of Aung San), won 392 out of the 485 seats contested.(Fuller). The National Union Party, the Junta, only won ten seats. The Junta immediately overturned the election and kept power for itself. Aun San Suu Kyi was put under house arrest and forced either to remain under house arrest or leave the country forever (she remains under house arrest to this day). Many ethnic guerilla groups formed and attempted to overthrow the government but the Junta swiftly and effectively crushed these groups (it continued to crush any groups which arose through the 90s and 2000s). The false election and violent methods of the Junta alarmed the International Community which assailed the Junta with criticism and at the same time asked that the Junta adhere to the election's results. The Junta in essence ignored this criticism and the effort made by the U.N. to legitimize the election. In June of 1993 the Junta promised to have a National Convention and write up a constitution. The National Convention does meet every once in a while, but there have been no signs of efforts to actually follow through with the promise of a constitution. On the 23 June, 1993, Burma entered the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The military government in 2006 changed the capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw (city of the kinds), basically a small city created for the top Junta officials. An oasis for the rich Junta leaders far from the poor civilians of Yangon.
Last August the Junta found itself facing Massive Protests after it raised the price of gas and diesel oil by 500% (wow that is pretty ridiculous). It did so in order to attempt to fill a budget deficit from an increase in civil servants' pay. This deficit may also have come from the 2006 move from Yangon to Naypyidaw. The Junta quickly crushed these early protests. On September 19th hundreds of Buddhist monks staged protests against the Junta. The Buddhist monks are a very strong legitimate power in Burma second only to the Junta. The Junta became increasingly strict resulting in: multiples injuries and deaths, many detainees, curfews, limitations on Internet access... The Junta not only reacted violently, but also performed late night raids on anybody who they considered dangerous to their regime. They arrested and detained hundreds of monks and civilians. Nobody is sure what happened to them, but supposedly quite a few have been set free (though many assume that many of them were murdered). The conflict seems to have ended for the time being and nobody can really say when the conflict will start up again.
We now must ask ourselves, who's left to fight against the Junta? The Junta have restricted education to limit the amount of student activism. Students have always been at the forefront of rebellion, and were at the forefront of the 1988 uprising. All political groups except that of the Junta's have been crushed. The most prominent leader of the opposing political group, Aung San Suu Kyi, remains under house arrest. Any new political leaders get killed or incarcerated (The Junta is not stupid enough to kill Aung San Suu Kyi). The Junta have nothing to fear from opposing political groups. The population has been completely frightened: when government cars roam around the streets late at night warning you that if you step out of line that you will be taken away, who can blame them. They also have no weapons, Burma has a very strict gun control policy (except for the military of course). Blunt objects versus guns usually turns out badly. Also half the population is part of an organization which is meat to spy on the general populace. People can't trust their neighbors anymore because they could be informers. The 1988 uprising also worked because government officials joined in the protests, but where are they now? As stated above they have just received a pay raise, in fact they are probably the most well off after people in the military. They risk much more then the civilians by getting involved in these political protests. Though, if they did get involved, it would cause severe internal damage to the Junta. The monks also play a key role in the opposition to the Junta. Being passive by nature, seeing monks out in the streets protesting has awakened the world to the problem in Myanmar. The monks also have a certain amount of respect from the people, this leads them to have a certain amount of power over the people's conscious. Any harm done to the monks could bring real social problems for the Junta. The Junta dealt with the monks using night raids and none-lethal capture methods. Though capturing monks still angered civilians, the Junta would have faced much deeper hatred and resentment had they openly attacked and/or killed monks in the street. Not many people actually saw these night raids so they couldn't truly understand what had gone on. At the same time by not using lethal force against the monks they have curbed the wrath of the people. According to Tom Laichas, the Junta opposition would have a good chance if the middle military officials got tired of what they were doing and revolted. This would either lead to a civil war or the forfeit and flee of the higher up military officials in the Junta. What would happen if the middle officers gained power? I have no idea. They might continue with the idea of a military dictatorship with a few changes. Ideally they would hand over the power to the people. However, it doesn't seem likely that the middle officials will rebel anytime soon.
The Junta have taken care of the situation in a pragmatic fashion. They have come to completely understand how the international community and system would react. Burma's neighboring countries do not want a civil war there because of the amount of refugees that would cross the border to their country. At the same time countries such as China and Russia do not want U.N. intervention because they have their own areas seeking independence. The U.N. did send a special envoy to Myanmar. But even Ban Ki-Moon admits that the mission was not a “success”. In fact all they really achieved was to give a “strong message” to the Junta about the violent crack down on the protests. If that message could have ever had any validity, it would have been before the protests ended. The Junta play the game: the U.N. idly sits by waiting for the Junta to get everything back in order before they go inspect. The leader of the Junta, Senior General Than Shwe kept the U.N. enoy leader, Ibrahim Gambari, waiting for three days before meeting with him. I don't see any kind of outrage at such a disrespectful act against the U.N. The Junta understands how powerless the U.N. and international law have become (I mean even the U.S. doesn't follow international law according to many experts), and therefore have no incentives to heed the U.N.'s warnings. The U.N. didn't intervene in Burma when the election of 1990 was reversed and a major crack down on political parties began, why would they intervene now?
At the same time how effective can we deem these non-violent protests? Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won the Novel-Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent acts, but does that mean that the country should follow her ideas? Non-Violent means can be effective for smaller things such as getting laws passed/rejected, but usually its methods aren't enough to overthrow a government. Many non-violent rebel groups end up being violent after their protests come to nothing. The only example I can think of when a non-violent group came to overthrow the current government was in India. But we must examine and understand the many differences between the Junta and the British controlling India. Mainly that the English government did not lose its power in England by letting India go. Britain was a colonial power, it sought economic advantages from its colonies (especially India). When India no longer became economically profitable and too difficult to manage, the English let it go. The Junta don't have the option of retaining their power if they let the protests succeed. Therefore (this might be opinion), using brutal methods may seem logical to keeping their power intact. In some sense, they have nothing to lose by stopping these protests by any means necessary. The problem is that all the guerrilla groups have already been destroyed by the Junta, and that half of the population informs the Junta on any misbehavior. If possible I would recommend an attempt at a more centralized armed resistance using guerrilla tactics against the Junta. I don't know exactly where the guerrillas might get their weapons, but I have no doubt that they would be able to find some. Even if the guerrillas fail, at least the international community might have a little more interest in the conflict in Burma. In any case, the time for non-violent seems to have ended and failed.
Works Cited
Fuller, Thomas. "A Look At the Opposition in Myanmar." New York Times 07 Oct. 2007.
Fuller, Thomas. "U.N. Reports Detentions in Myanmar." New York Times 4 Oct. 2007.
Holusha, John. "Myanmar News." New York Times 25 Sept. 2007.
"Myanmar." Wikipedia. 09 Oct. 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment