Burma: Myanmarnization by Brute Force will Not Pay

By Kanbawza Win | November 01, 2012

The Union of Burma, since its inception has been dominated by the majority Myanmar over the Non-Myanmar, it harbours an obsession to be homogeneous state of one country, (Myanmar), one religion (Buddhist) and one language (Myanmar language) over all the Non-Myanmar ethnic nationalities and all faiths. This is why it has the longest ethnic insurrections in the world up to this day since its founding in 1948.

Now, because of a terrible religious and ethnic sectarian strife in Western Burma, a veil had been lifted to reveal a hideous blemish where Rakhine Buddhist were pitted against the immigrant Muslim leaving some 400 people killed so far. This is not the first nor will be the last if forced Myanmarnization goes on. Currently there is an addition 28,000 displaced Muslim in addition to 75,000 already in the refugee camps in Bangladesh.[1] Under the current Burmese law, the 800,000 Arakanese Muslims are de jure stateless in Burma partly because of the Bengali extremist in Diaspora based in Europe and America invented a new word “Rohingya” to be one of the numerous ethnic races in Burma touching off the country’s sovereignty and falling into the hands of the hardliners faction of the army who are against the change and wanted to make a comeback and cover up the army’s excess in Kachin state .[2]

Gone are the eulogies of changing the country from dictatorship to democracy and Thein Sein, a former general who has become the country’s reforming president, has reneged on an agreement to let the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) which groups 57 countries, that wanted to help the Refugees who are in dire need for help with many suffering malnutrition to open an office in Burma.[3] This is the second time that Thein Sein has refused the international aid, first in the Nargis Cyclone when it hit the country on May 2nd 12008 killing some 101,000 and 3.2 million were affected.[4] Paradoxically, this nominated Nobel Prize has even suggested to systematically deport the undesirable Muslims to a third country. His justification was that opening an OIC office would not be “in accordance with the people’s desires” in response to demonstrations led by Buddhist monks, in Rangoon Mandalay and Akyab and in new Burma it is impossible to suppress protests violently, especially if they are led by monks. But the underlying raison d'être is that he wants to woo back the monks for the excesses in the Saffron Revolution where thousands of monks were killed in 2007. However, it is a fact that that the government tolerated and in some cases instigated the protests to give it a pretext. Many of the demonstrations were without the approvals required under Burmese law, yet nobody has been punished.[5] The other aspect is that it could have easily send more security forces to keep the peace and deliberated refrain from doing so and obviously wants to keep foreign eyes out as it makes life so intolerable for the Muslim and other religious minorities and ethnic races.

Wrong Approach by International Community

The above is the old map of British Burma at that time the concept of nationhood in the Western or modern sense did not exists in pre colonial times. The final annexation in 1885-6

did administratively and politically unify the Mon, and the Arakanese homeland which are put under the British direct rule. But the Shan, Chin and Kachin homelands were administered separately even though they were nonetheless under the political authority of the British governor of Burma. In fact the situation in Burma at the time of final annexation was one in which as a result of incompetence and the frequent palace coups and intrigues, the kingdom was already dismembered.[6] Prior to the first Anglo-Burmese war (March 5th 1824) there has never being a Burmese nation. As noted by J.S. Furnival and other the kingdom of Burma coexisted and frequently waged wars with the Mon and Arakanese (Rakhine) kingdoms and the Shan Saphoas and princes.[7] So it was not what the Myanmar historians portrayed that the British take over a united and cohesive kingdom and then proceeded to dismember it, to keep it divided and submissive. Rather than encouraging separatism the colonial authorities found it more convenient and expedient to encourage Myanmrnization as the language of the Myanmar was taught in schools.[8]

Modern Union of Burma came into being because of the Shan, Chin, Kachin nations came reached a consensus in 1947 at the Panglong village in Southern Shan State under the auspices of Bogyoke Aung San father of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The other national leaders of Shan, Chin and Kachin saw that he possessed statesman like qualities and is the only leader that did not subscribe to extreme and narrow Myanmar nationalism which many Myanmar leaders do even up to this day. His charisma, frankness and common sense approach to problem convinced the Non-Myanmar leaders that he understood the fears and mistrust of the non-Myanmar over the Myanmar and that he recognised and respected their rights and autonomy. Hence because of his initiative the Panglong Conference was a success which give birth to modern Burma.

However, Bogyoke Aung San and almost his entire was killed before the country gained independence and the following leaders both the civilian and the military did not respect the concordat and the Myanmarnization programme was started with might and main up to this day. The Non Myanmar ethnic nationalities resisted and hence the continuation of the problem was the genocide in the North (Kachin) and ethnic cleansing in the West (Muslims).

So it must be in this context that the international community especially scholars and friends of Burma to re-think and re examine the assumption and the premises that they have long held on which have based many of their pronouncements and judgements concerning national building, state building political development and modernization in Burma since 1948. It is time for the scholars and students especially those of the West led by the US and the ASEAN countries to discuss the myths surrounding the political history of Burma to help bring Burma back to the real world even as it is endeavouring now. New Burma today faced several problems apart from that of the ruined economy and one of the major hazards is nation building and ethnic cleansing since very little was done by the international community to tackle this aspect

Myanmar and Non Myanmar Perspectives

The hardened ethnic distrust and irreconcilable versions of the interpretation of modern Burmese history should be studied by the international scholars on Burma to really know of why the current situation is happening as history is living. For instance, the great majority of the Myanmar share a belief that the present day Burma developed in a linear fashion straight from the founding of the first Burmese kingdom at the central plains of Pagan in the 11th century. Only the British colonization of the Myanmar Kingdom disrupted this historical development. They believe in the accounts of their mighty, expansionistic imperialist empires[9] with subordinate alliances made up of multi-ethnic and multi-language communities, including the Shan, the Arakanese, the Mons, and so on, encompassing the present day Burma and its political boundaries and, at times, stretching into neighbouring India and Thailand are their subordinates and hence should not be treated as equal. The successive administrations had encouraged this erroneous Mahar-Myanmar thinking and the problem now is how to get rid of this disease that fuels the conflict.

A wildly different version is in circulation among non-Myanmar ethnic groups and accepted by the pro democracy groups in Diaspora believes that :

"The Union of Burma is a nation-state of diverse ethnic nations (ethnic nationalities or nationalities), founded in 1947 at the Panglong Conference by pre-colonial independent ethnic nationalities such as the Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni, Mon and Rakhine (Arakan), Myanmar (Burman) based on the principle of equality. As it was founded by formerly independent peoples in 1947 through an agreement, the boundaries of the Union of Burma today are not historical."

Hence the past is no guide for the future - more accurately is how the parties want Burma's future to be - the vision for a future Burma - can serve as a blueprint. Such a vision born out of civic, national debate is solely needed, and so are the leaders who are equipped intellectually to appreciate this process and not allow them to succumb to powerful primordial sentiments in the process. No doubt the flames of ethno-nationalisms of Burma will continue to burn, given the fact that many non-Myanmar ethnic communities have felt that they have been deliberately deprived of equality, politically, culturally and economically under the Myanmar dominated rule for so long. The latest proof is that there was no cease-fire agreement with the Kachin as the Thein Sein administration would not consider any ethnic groups to be its equal[10] but bent to bribe only the leaders with economic incentive. The distrust and fear of the Myanmar commonly shared by non-Myanmar groups throughout the country began long before the nationalist army headed by Aung San came into existence in 1941.

This is the crux of the problems of Burma and surely no attempt was made by the Myanmar leaders both Thein Sein administration and NLD headed by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi so far. In fact the roots of the ethnic conflicts in Burma can be traced backed to the fact that there was really no clear or firm agreement between the Myanmar and the Non-Myanmar elites as to what constitutes the Union of Burma or Pyidoungsu and what is meant by nationalism and national unity.[11]There was no consensus on the sort of super-ordinate, subordinate or centre states relationship that should be operative. Prior to the first Panglong Conference (1946),[12] the Shan, Chin, Kachin, and other ethnic leaders have never met each other nor had they met the future leaders of Burma like Bogyoke Aung San, Thankin Nu, U Ba Swe etc. Moreover, none had ever dreamt that the British will leave so quickly as they did. Nor did the Non Myanmar leaders ever thought that AFPFL was a legitimate nationalities movement. Rather they construe that it was an organization that has collaborated with the enemy Japanese where the country had suffered very much and now has switch side to the winning side. The ambiguity concerning the union and the different perceptions of identity and loyalty created a communication perception gaps between the Myanmar and the Non-Myanmar elites and people. But it is a fact that that several attempts has been made by the previous administrations not to solve this crisis but to rough ride over the Non-Myanmar. This can be seen in the drafting of the Constitution but it must be remember that the Panglong Conference is life blood of modern Burma as the way in which the “Declaration of Independence 1776” is important to the Americans in fundamental nature. The signatories had negotiated and reached final agreement to form a UNION because they all guaranteed to treat each other with equalities in all aspects including rights and privileges in politic, economic, cultural, and self-determination right of each people within their own territories. The sincerity and trust of signatories of Panglong Agreement was revealed in Article 210 of the Constitution of Union of Burma (1948) by guaranteeing secession right of signatories state from the Union of Burma after ten years of independence. Therefore, the Panglong Agreement is the only contractual legal document of founding the Modern of Burma so that the essence of the Panglong Agreement needs to be respect and perverse not only by Burmese people but also international governments, organizations, and associations who want to see continuation of the existence of the Union of Burma in international politics and international relation. That is the AFPFL Draft Constitution for Burma,[13] and because after the Panglong Agreement was signed, the AFPFL initiated to draft the Constitution of Burma Union and its territories. The AFPFL elected General Aung San as a leader of Drafting Committee along with 110 Committee Members. The Draft Constitution of Burma Union and Its Territories was brought to the AFPFL National Convention and subsequently approved enormously in May 27, 1947. This is not only the concise of the Union of Burma but also the foundation which future scholars and international community should approach Burma, if they want the ethnic problems to be solved in Burma, for Burma is not a monolithic whole before 1947.

U Nu, the new leader of transitory period has not participated in Panglong Conference so that did not understand the essence of Panglong Agreement as well as who was a person critical to grant non-Myanmar ethnic nationals to have equal rights with ethnic nationals during negotiation of Aung San and Attlee on Burmese independence. U Nu authorized U Chan Htun, legal consultant of Constitution Drafting Committee of AFPFL to revise the “Approved Constitution of Burma Union and Its Territories” but both betrayed Aung San’s dream and revised substantively the “Approved Constitution of Burma Union and Its Territories” from federal type of constitution to unitary type of constitution. The revised “Constitution of Burma Union and Its Territories” was brought to the interim legislature by U Nu and asked the speaker of the interim legislature for approval from the interim legislators without debate and subsequently approved on September 24, 1947. The revised Constitution of the Union of Burma came into force on January 4, 1948 when Burma was officially granted independence by Great Britain.

(a)The 1948 Constitution

Gradually, the non-Myanmar ethnic national leaders, politicians, and scholars realized that the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1948) not only disregard the essence of Panglong Agreement but also was substantively different from the “Draft Constitution Approved by the AFPFL National Convention”. They also realized that the Constitution of Union of Burma (1948) allowed majority Myanmar nationals to manipulate all legislative, executive, and judiciary powers over Non-Myanmar ethnic nationals. Therefore, the non-Myanmar ethnic national leaders gathered in Taunggyi, the capital city of Shan State in 1961 to discuss the defects of the Constitution of Union of Burma (1948). Over 200 non-Myanmar politicians, leaders, and scholars agreed to amend the defects of the Constitution of Union of Burma (1948) within democratic principles and approved the drafted “Federal Bill” to table at the Union Parliament. Consequently, they also urged Prime Minister U Nu to initiate Federal Seminar in Rangoon to discuss the future of Burma Union and implementation of federalism in the Union of Burma.

The Prime Minister and all Myanmar ethnic national leaders understood that Federal Bill was ready to table in the Union Parliament for amending the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1948) and it will be passed without difficulties since all non-Myanmar ethnic national leaders’ favour to amend the Constitution according to the “Federal Bill”. They also understood that if the Constitution of the Union of Burma was amended according to the “Federal Bill,” the Myanmar will have equal status with non-Myanmar nationals although they are majority in population and in some other aspects. The Myanmar nationalists, who were the high-ranking officers in Burmese Army, realized that the only way to safeguard Myanmar domination over non-Myanmar ethnic nationals is removing the democratic regime by force. Therefore, the Burmese Army took the power on March 2, 1962.

(b) The 1974 Socialist Constitution

After the coup, Brigadier General Aung Gyi, the second most powerful in the coup have said to the media that the reason of the military coup was to prevent from disintegration of Burma Union and also indirectly indicated the “Federal Movement” was an evident to prove the coup. The Revolutionary Council arrested all participants in the Taunggyi Conference and sent them to jail without due process of law. Many prominent non-Myanmar ethnic national leaders were secretly murdered in jail. Subsequently, the Revolutionary Council drafted a new Constitution after ten years that came to force in 1974. The new Constitution not only disregarded the essence of Panglong Agreement, but also constitutionally expanded Myanmar ethnic national domination toward non-Myanmar ethnic nationals by creating Seven Divisions out of Myanmar inhabitant area. Therefore, under the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (1974), the Myanmar had monopolized all legislative, executive, and judicial power by creating Seven Divisions and Seven non-Myanmar ethnic national States.

(c) NLD’s Interim Constitution

Although the Socialist military regime collapsed in 1988 and the NLD was voted for to restore democracy in Burma by the people, the NLD has failed to carry out the peoples’ mandate due to two significantly important factors. First, NLD failed to draft the Interim Constitution of Burma based on the essence of Panglong Agreement, instead the NLD cheaply revised the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1948) and proclaimed to be used as interim Constitution for transitory period and lost the trust of non-Myanmar ethnic nationals. The majority of NLD’s top leaders are former military officers who were ousted by General Ne Win so that restoration of democracy in Burma is not priority but keen on toppling the military regime.

(d) The Nargis Constitution

In 1997 the Junta, issued a decree and initiated to draft the Constitution of the Union of Burma. The clear intention is to legalize the military rule in Burma within constitutional framework and that the NLD had withdrawn from the National Convention. Now that the election was over the provisions of the `Junta’s Nargis Constitution has not only brought the legitimacy of military rule in Burma through the Constitution but also it will create a strong central government to control every local, regional, and state entities within the Union dominated by the Burmese army in perpetuity.

(e) NCUB’s Draft Constitution

Since 1992, the National Council of Union of Burma composed of Myanmar and Non Myanmar oppositions in Liberated Area and Members of Parliament Union initiated to draft the Future Constitution of the Federal Union of Burma Although all non-Myanmar ethnic nationals have been giving attention to write their own state constitutions according to democratic principles and practices with limited resources, the Myanmar ethnic nationals have not shown interest to draft a Myanmar State Constitution for the Genuine (Federal) Union of Burma. This finally led the ethnic national leaders to conclude that that either the “Myanmar military leaders or the pro-democratic Myanmar nationals” in and outside the Burma are not respecting the essence of Panglong Agreement. In other words this is the crux of the chauvinistic Myanmar mentality and there was no wonder that full Myanmarnization has been going on with brute force.

Authenticated Proof of Myanmarnization

The most conspicuous aspect of ethnic cleansing and Myanmarnization is by forcibly changing the name of the country from the Union of Burma to Myanmar, which in Burmese we say the works of Ma Har Myan Mar (r[mjrefrm). Obviously there are many instances in history e.g. when Norman the Conqueror conquered the Anglo Saxons they rape and intermarried the natives and later became the English, Alexander the Great and his soldiers married a Persian women after he conquered Persia (Iran) in 334 BC and in the contemporary history of the European killed and rape the Red Indians (aborigines) in the 17th and 19th centuries and became a great nation America and Canada. So their logic is what if we rape the ethnic women and married them, their children will not be so rebellious seems to be the raison d’être of the Tatmadaw.[14]

Communicating each other in English, it is natural that we call a country’s name in English and not in their native tongue. Thus we call China as China and not Chung Kio (the middle kingdom) in Chinese. So also we did not call Sweden as Sverige, Germany as Deutchland, Spain as Espania, Finland as Suomi and so on. Hence there is no reason to call the country and its people by the same name Myanmar. Call a spade a spade why call it a hoe? The simple reason is that, in English language the people from America are call American, from France is French, from England is English, from India is Indian from China is Chinese and so on. So what is wrong calling the country Burma and its people Burmese? Even if the whole world accepted this illogical name of Myanmar as a country than the people should be called Myarmarnese. Yet they objected themselves to be called Myarmanese? From this episode alone one can know that two screws are loose in the upper storey of the Generals. It is ridiculous to call the country and the people by the same name of Myanmar in the English language. Perhaps the ex generals in their zeal over the ethnic nationalities also want to Myanmarnise the English language also. One cannot comprehend of why the ex generals are making themselves a nuisance and international fools.

“Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, on her trip to Thailand and Europe skimming on the world’s media headlines laid bare the buffoonery of the Burmese Generals in every aspects, especially in calling our beloved country Union of Burma founded by her father, instead of Myanmar, founded on the theory that Dictators can change the name of their country according to their whims and fancies without the consent of the people.” [15]

Currently in transition from dictatorship to democracy Burma presents the best opportunity in two decades to address conflicts between the government and ethnic communities and the prevalence of democracy. But to achieve lasting peace, ceasefires agreed between the government and armed ethnic groups must be extended to include participation from a range of stakeholders, and substantial discussion of issues which have structured more than half-a-century of armed conflict.[16] Without a political settlement, the current round of ceasefires in Burma are unlikely to be sustainable.[17]

It has been admitted that Myanmar comprised a major percentage of the whole of Burma, while the Non Myanmar or rather the ethnic nationalities comprised the rest, they are not minorities but major races in their own administrative States and Divisions residing since the dawn of history.[18] If the international community acquiesce to the ethnic cleansing policy and that dictators can change the name of the country and national flag according to their whims and fancies; then we should call it Myanmar Naing Ngan (jrefrmEdkifiH ) for Myanmar is a race and Naing Ngan (EdkifiH) is a country in Burmese language which is the linga franca.[19]

Dictator General Ne Win took the country from one of the richest countries of Southeast Asia better known as the rice bowl of Asia to the Least Developed Country by its Burmese Way to Socialism[20] and change the name to the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma together with the national flag.

Thein Sein even though makes several changes for democracy refused to recognize the Union of Burma by rejecting the Panglong Conference and like his predecessors is desirous to continue to treat the ethnic nationalities as a colonial people if not second class citizens. So he changes the national flag that does not included any semblance of ethnic nationalities and try to woo the West. What more prove is wanted where this but one of the living proof.

There is not a single country in the world that does not have ethnic nationalities but all of them are co existing peaceably, whatever system it applies. Classic examples being US, Canada, India that aspire liberal democracy while China, and socialist countries still have their ethnic minorities living peaceably once their aspirations are met. It was only in Burma that the marginalization of the Myanmar over the non Myanmar is so much that the only alternative is to take up arms and fight. Hence, every friend of Burma in the international community that have the good intention of solving the Burmese gridlock must approach from this perspective.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi aspire to complete the unfinished task of her father by calling the 2nd Panglong Conference where the grievances of the ethnic nationalities are met while at the same time handle the task of nation building leading to democracy and the prevalence of human rights, even so far she has not said anything about the ethnic causes. She knew that her place in parliament confers some degree of legitimacy, but it’s a question of how far her influence can go towards overhauling it. Burmese Academic Dr Zarni says, “Parliament is not about 60 million people behind Suu Kyi. It’s about who has the largest number of seats in Parliament”. At the moment many of the same uncertainties exist in ethnic relations. The quasi military government has not developed a consistent policy to resolve the country’s ethnic conflicts such as Kachin state and sectarian crisis in Western Burma. Hence it certainly raises doubts about its intentions, and there are legitimate concerns that both the quasi government and the Burmese army have economic rather than political agendas in the ethnic borderlands.[21]

Since the outbreak of violence in Arakan State there has been no transparency and accountability regarding the fate of victims as well as those instigating the violence.[22] The international community and human rights organizations, were disheartened to see such inaction as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and 8888 generation from those who still claim to represent the democracy movement. Burma’s absolute monarchs have always played a key role in protecting Buddhism in the country and so there is not wonder that military generals have always played the Muslim card to win the hearts and minds of the population.[23]

The Burmese Generals have very much admired Chairman Mao, especially his theory that power comes out of the barrel of a gun and they have practiced this theory for more than half a century starting from March 2nd 1962 After more than fifty years of gross human rights violation, ethnic cleansing, forced labour, child soldiers implemented by brutal dictatorship and taking the country from the rice bowl to the rice hole of Asia these narco Generals to realise that they are about to lose their independence. The country is clearly heading to become 6th autonomous region of China[24] as they had to depend solely on the magnanimity of China from arms, ammunition and economic supplies to diplomatic support at the UN. Even the local people especially the ward and township elders are learning Chinese language replacing the lingua franca Burmese language.[25] The Burmese Generals realise that the only way to wriggle out of the Chinese orbit is to be friend with the United States of America, the arsenal of democracy and to be friends with US it must change to democracy at least in some form of semblance, hence they release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and brings the NLD in.

The Myanmar leaders realising that their policy of a great nation using brute chauvinism and ethnic cleansing over the non Myanmar for half a century is not working in their favour but rather having an adverse effect of pushing them to a pariah state. So they have taken a leave out of the dictum and strategy of Deng Xiaoping’s Theory - of “using economics to outflank politics”, what we in Chinese we say 从毛泽东的思想到邓小平的理论=从毛泽东思想到邓小平理论 Now that the country has opened up to market reforms is using skillfully the economic development projects in the ethnic nationalities dominated area to marginalize the opposition. The government have deliberately used the market system as an aid to political cooperation - locally through cross-border groupings that bring together capital, labor and natural resources from neighboring states in what are now known as a new Burma which goes further than any previous economic venture.

Even though the country is in a position to solve its own numerous problems provided the General Amnesty is declared and invited the Burmese intelligentsia in Diaspora who are exposed to the world to come back and work for the country it could have easily solve these problems bur both the Generals and the NLD have refrain from doing so because the returnees would be eclipsed them and take their future positions.

The international community and the scholars must know that ethnic conflict and political crisis in Burma is a man-made crisis and is deeply rooted in the Myanmarnization and the chauvinistic political culture, the majority Myanmar have to realize and be convinced that for them to continue to manipulate the military for their political and racial purposes will be counterproductive.[26] The Myanmar chauvinistic political culture has to change to reach a negotiated constitutional agreement and a consolidated political settlement in a federalist democracy. The young generation must abandon the old way of racism and embrace a new way of thinking and a democratic political culture, actively playing an important role in the democratization process. The most important aspect is that all Burma stakeholders work together to create conditions and a political environment where the military must take part in Burma’s democratization process. But all this will require a sincere and open engagement and a serious intention to create a win-win situation—that is, to establish a federalism-based democratic country, conducive to a long-lasting peace, where Myanmar and non-Myanmar, and all the stakeholders together can say they have won collectively.[27]

Prof. Dr Kanbawza can be reached at bathannwin@gmail.com

Foot Notes
[1] Big News Network 30-10-2012
[2] Zaw, Aung Fresh Arakan Strife Bad Omen for Reform Irrawaddy 29-10-2012
[3] The Economist No help, please, we’re Buddhists 20-10-2012 print edition
[4] Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public Health
[5] The Economist No help, please, we’re Buddhists 20-10-2012 print edition
[6] Sao Saimong, Shan States, pp 152-60
[7] J S Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice. London; Cambridge University press 1948 p 32
[8] Yawnghwe, Chao Tsang The Burman Military Holding the Country Together p85 in Independent Burma in forty years
[9] Erecting three mammoth statues of the imperialist kings in Naypyidaw is an authentic proof of it.
[10] Naing, Saw Yang Displacement down in Eastern Burma in Irrawaddy 31-10-2012
[11] Yawnghwe, Chao Tsang The Burman Military Holding the Country Together p85 in Independent Burma in forty years
[12] Note Even when Bogyoke Aung San was alive the Panglong Conference was successful only in the second attempt on 12th feb 1947
[13] The first Draft Constitution for Burma Union and Its Territories was initiated by the Anti Fascist Peoples Freedom League (AFPFL), under the leadership of General Aung San, U Ba Win (the elder brother of General Aungsan), and 110 Constitution Drafting Committee members. The Draft Constitution for Burma Union and Its Territories was brought to the AFPFL National Convention for approval and subsequently approved without dissented vote on May 27, 1947.
[14] In Burmese they are known as Mudane Tatmadaw (rk'drf;wyfrawmf) meaning Rapist Burmese army
[15] Win; Kanbawza: Myanmar the Buffoon of the World. Asian Tribune, Euro Asia 1-7-2012
[16] It started from 1949 with the Burmese Communist Party and People’s Volunteer Organizations
[17] South; Ashley, Resolving Ethnic Conflicts in Burma-Ceasefires to Sustainable Peace in The Irrawaddy 8-3-2012
[18] Non Myanmar consists of Shan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni Mon and Arakanese which are major races and in between them there are several sub tribes
[19] If this logic is to be followed we might as well call the other countries in their own language such as Chung Quo for China, Deutschland for Germany, Espanola for Spain. Isn’t ridiculous the country and people in one word in the English Language? Isn’t ridiculous to call a country and the people with the same name?
[20] An odd combination of Buddhism and Marxism
[21] Assessing Burma’s New Government “ Challenges and Opportunities for EU Policies, Responses Amsterdam, 22 & 23 February 2012
[22] Zaw, Aung Fresh Arakan Strife Bad Omen for Reform Irrawaddy 29-10-2012
[23] Zaw, Aung Fresh Arakan Strife Bad Omen for Reform Irrawaddy 29-10-2012
[24] The five autonomous regions of China are Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi and Ningxia
[25] Please refer to Kanbawza Wins Article Ni How Mar or Has President Bush Agree of Burma becoming an autonomous region of China published in Kao Wao News and Asian Tribune
[26] Vanie; Salai Elasia Burma’s Ethnic Conflict and the Road to Democracy in Irrawaddy 30-10-2012
[27] Ibid

No comments: