Living Silence in Burma (2 page)

Glossary

To friends in Burma

Introduction

Burma is a surprising country. Boasting emerald-green rice fields, a multitude of tropical flowers and fruits, and brilliantly painted temples and shops, it is awash with colour. Many Burmese, men and women, continue to wear
longyis
– tube-shaped pieces of cloth tucked or knotted at the waist – decorated in striking patterns. Meanwhile, children run around with
thanaka
, a sweet-smelling paste made from ground wood, smeared on their faces. A carefree cheerfulness seems to characterize the people, but if you mention ‘democracy’ or Aung San Suu Kyi, people freeze.

Burma is blessed with abundant natural resources, including oil and natural gas, yet it is one of the least developed countries in the world. In the rural areas, oxcarts are still in use and candles are a necessity rather than a decorative item, as less than 25 per cent of rural houses have electricity.
¹

The lovely port-city of Rangoon is dominated by the shimmering golden Shwedagon Pagoda, although high-rise hotels now clutter the view. Rangoon’s markets and tea shops bustle with activity, but its main universities are quiet as most classes have been moved to campuses outside the city, where university students cannot easily organize mass demonstrations.

Although Rangoon served as the capital from the British colonial period, in 2005 the regime suddenly moved the seat of government to an undeveloped area in the middle of the country. Removed from the trials and tribulations of ordinary citizens, the leading generals can enjoy their modern homes and perhaps believe that they are ruling wisely.

For tourists, one of the most striking images in Burma is that of crimson- and saffron-robed monks walking serenely down the streets single file on their early-morning alms rounds. Pious Buddhist men and women step out of their homes to offer food, grateful for the opportunity to make merit. But in September 2007, monks marched by the thousands down the streets of some of Burma’s largest towns for a different reason: to try to awaken a spirit of compassion in the hearts of the military leaders. In August 2007, the regime had suddenly removed subsidies on diesel and compressed natural gas, resulting in massive price increases. The impact on the poor was disastrous: some people could literally no longer afford to take the bus to work. After a few bold activists were arrested for marching in protest, the monks decided they had to make an effort on the people’s behalf. The regime, however, had no tolerance for such actions, particularly when lay people started joining in. Soldiers and other paramilitary groups brought the movement to an end through a combination of beatings, shootings, midnight temple raids and mass arrests.

Burma has been under military control since 1962. In 1988, pro-democracy demonstrations broke out nationwide, shattering the silence that had largely characterized political life for so many years. Students, professionals, civil servants and even some soldiers took to the streets to celebrate their new-found freedom. But after six weeks, the military was able to re-establish control, in part by promising multiparty elections for a new government. In 1990, the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won a landslide victory, and change seemed imminent. But the regime refused to transfer power and instead began arresting some of those who had been elected. Aung San Suu Kyi herself had been put under house arrest in 1989 and was not released until 1995. She was soon rearrested and has spent most of the years since trapped in her house, only rarely able to communicate with family, friends or the outside world. Meanwhile thousands of other Burmese citizens have spent years behind bars for the ‘crime’ of daring to speak out against the regime.

Today, there are two key political issues in Burma: the restoration of democracy and the resolution of the political rights of ethnic nationalities. Despite domestic and international calls for democratization, the top generals have insisted on keeping power for themselves. At the same time, the regime has remained committed to the concentration of political power at the centre so as to prevent what it calls ‘the disintegration of the union’. While the military regime has insisted that it is working to unify the country, its promotion of Burman culture, the Burmese language and Buddhism at the expense of other cultures, languages and religions has in many ways exacerbated pre-existing divisions.

Civil war broke out soon after independence, with ethnic minorities seeking greater autonomy in their areas. Since 1962, however, the regime has sought to bring all the ethnic areas, which make up half the country, under centralized control and to limit the teaching of ethnic minority languages. Resentment towards these policies, as well as anger over the brutal counter-insurgency campaigns in the ethnic states, drove tens of thousands of young men to join ethnic nationalist armies bent on maintaining territory under their own control.

Resistance to military rule, then, has come from both pro-democracy supporters and ethnic nationalist groups that seek greater autonomy. These struggles, however, have overlapped only partially. Some ethnic nationalist leaders worry that a democratic government would not safeguard minority rights. At the same time, some Burman pro-democracy activists are uncomfortable with the ethnic nationalists’ demands for autonomy, which they perceive as potentially leading to the break-up of the country. In recent years, many of the opposition groups have come to see the creation of a federal, democratic union as the best solution for all, but the regime’s divide-and-rule tactics have made it difficult for them to work together.

Many Burmese citizens readily admit their dissatisfaction with military rule. They are tired of the political repression, the widespread extortion and the inability of the regime to manage the economy. They are also frustrated by the constant uncertainties they face. What is permitted by the authorities today may be considered unacceptable tomorrow. This is equally true for businesses involved in importing and exporting goods, non-governmental organizations carrying out programmes in rural communities, and writers dealing with the censorship board.

But most Burmese hesitate to take action, for even being caught with an opposition newspaper can land them in prison for years. In addition, their families may face trouble because of their actions. As a result, most Burmese attempt to get on with their lives as best they can while indulging in the dream that perhaps one day the United States or the United Nations will swoop in and remove the regime for them.

Such a scenario is extremely unlikely. While international interest in Burma has increased significantly since 1990, no government or international body has proposed any kind of military action to remove the regime. Instead, various foreign governments have tried both sanctions and persuasion to compel the regime to take a more conciliatory approach to its opposition. But the leading generals have bristled at what they see as outside interference in Burma’s internal affairs. As the foreign minister, Win Aung, put it in 1998 when the UN tried to offer large-scale financial assistance in return for political concessions, ‘Giving a banana to a monkey and asking it to dance is not the way. We are not monkeys.’
²

Despite the regime’s tenacity, it has to be asked how the military has managed to stay in power for so many years. Many factors have combined to keep Burma under military rule, including fear, the difficulties of organizing and sustaining an opposition movement, and successful propaganda by the regime, particularly with regard to the need for the military to hold the country together. In the 1990s, international players also contributed to the regime’s staying power, with China providing massive military support to Burma’s armed forces and foreign companies investing significant amounts of money in joint ventures with military-owned businesses. Yet Burma’s economic mismanagement, ongoing counter-insurgency campaigns and inability or unwillingness to stop the drug trade also had serious impacts for Burma’s neighbours. Migrant workers, refugees and drugs have flowed out of Burma, but the regime has never offered an apology.

Modern authoritarian regimes have held power in countries of widely diverse religious and cultural backgrounds, suggesting that there is nothing particular about Burmese culture which makes Burma more susceptible to military rule. The leaders of authoritarian regimes, however, naturally seek to emphasize those historical, cultural and religious traditions which help legitimize or bolster their power. This book illustrates how successive regimes in Burma have manipulated Burmese history and exploited certain cultural norms and popular beliefs both to legitimize military rule and to marginalize detractors. The book will also show how successive regimes have used violence and a climate of insecurity to instil fear and political passivity in the people they have ruled.