Understanding a Changing Myanmar

Speaking at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, Yale University doctoral student Josh Gordon explained that Myanmar is still in the shadow of its colonial past. When the ruling military junta changed the name of the country from Burma, they did so without the consent of the citizens. The name Myanmar is more ethnically inclusive, but it also signified a break with the nation’s tumultuous British colonial past. This transition still faces significant hurdles even in the aftermath of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s historic visit to Myanmar. Carnegie-Tsinghua hosted Gordon in a discussion of Myanmar’s future as the country continues to transition away from its colonial past.

The Legacy of Colonialism

Despite the fact that Myanmar is opening politically, the colonial era remains important. The legacy of colonialism informs the master narrative of modern Myanmar, Gordon said.

• Dream of a Golden Land: Gordon explained that Myanmar is a small country rich in natural resources. It inhabits a strategic geopolitical location, flanked by two major powers in India and China. Historically, foreign elements have colonized the location and profited from its resources. This history shapes political thinking in the country.
   
• Colonial Roots: Gordon added that British colonists introduced capitalist modes of economic organization. This led to the commercial modes of economic organization being associated with ethnically oriented economic exploitation. The British sat atop this pyramid, followed by Asian immigrant minority groups (South Asian and Chinese) that were central to commercial life, and the local Bamar occupied the lowest rung of the ladder.
   
• A Plural Society: Historically, Gordon stated, there were three main foreign groups in Myanmar: European, Indian, and Chinese. There is a cleavage between Bamar factions in society and the foreign element, as well as  a great divide between the rural and urban demographics, with the Bamar generally being more rural and agrarian. In response to colonialism, the Bamar people supported socialism and the neutralist autarchy. They viewed it as a mode of regaining Bamar control over the national economy.
   
• Socialist Burma: The middle of the twentieth century saw parliamentary rule in Myanmar. Gordon stated that this was curtailed by the Ne Win dictatorship, which ruled uninterrupted from 1962 to 1988. The Ne Win imposed a citizenship law in 1982 in the hopes of excluding the remaining Asian immigrant minorities, many of whom had left.
   
• Change in 1988: Chronic economic mismanagement, political repression, and communist and ethnic insurgencies led to large-scale protests, Gordon explained. The military coup and violent repression that followed led to approximately 3,000 deaths. The new junta, Gordon explained, established the State Law and Order Restoration Council, broke up the Burma Communist Party, and instituted a ceasefire in certain areas. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League of Democracy (NLD) won the election in 1990.

Implications for China and the West

• Revival of Chinese-Burmese Trade: After border trade was reopened in 1988, Gordon explained that trade flourished in the ceasefire areas on the Chinese-Myanmar border. These border areas maintained quasi-independence and were a hotbed for “grey business,” including the drug, timber, and gem trades. Immigration also began to resume both in Mandalay and in the ceasefire areas along the border. Chinese foreign investment also resumed. Most notably, China has been building a series of dams in the border region. Zha Daojiong, professor at Peking University’s School of International Studies, explained that these dams have been crucial to bringing electricity to the border regions.
   
• Yardsticks for Measuring China-Myanmar Relations: According to Zha, there are several important factors in the relationship between the two countries.
  
  
  1. Regime must remain stable
  2. Cross-border trade needs to be institutionalized. Currently, cross-border trade is cash-based and necessitates the involvement of Chinese banks.
  3. Myanmar ports must remain uninvolved in the United States’ and India’s military strategies.
  4. A clear differentiation should be made between Chinese and Western roles in Myanmar. China and the West can have different, mutually beneficial roles. For example, the United States can help with internal problems, such as the lack of rule of law, while China can build infrastructure for trade and development.
  5. Myanmar must put a stop to the brain and labor drain to the rest of Southeast Asia.

Implications for the West

• Disappointment With the West: Gordon stated that low levels of economic involvement of the West in Myanmar means that Western capitalism is still seen in an idealized light. While the Unison Solidarity and Development Party is still framing the West as a neocolonial threat, this narrative has very limited appeal and may change as Myanmar opens up. Myanmar’s politics are becoming less of a stark good-versus-evil contest.
   
• Perceptions From the West: Both Zha and James Baker, first secretary at the British Embassy, spoke about Western perceptions of Myanmar. Zha stated that there are some limits to Western rhetoric about Myanmar being based on emotions. He referenced examples like Massachusetts’ sanctions against Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi’s omnipresence in the media. Baker discussed the importance of the language of geopolitics and how emotional rhetoric can be used to encourage stability in Myanmar.

Shaking Colonialism Off

• Neocolonialism: There have been accusations of neocolonialism from both the ruling Tatmadaw backed government and the NLD. Gordon explained that the government still believed that the West has colonial ambitions in the country. Baker pointed out that the British are especially sensitive to this fact due to their colonial legacy. The NLD, on the other hand, has accused the Tatmadaw of being a quasi-colonial regime that has sold out the country to an imperialist China.
   
• Problems for China: Gordon stated that the overall narrative of Myanmar’s modern history predisposes the Myanmar people to be wary of covetous outsiders. China’s large-scale involvement in Myanmar has been interpreted as colonialism. He described how Myanmar’s perception of China occupies two extremes: either China has done no wrong or China is a colonizer. Gordon concluded that neither is entirely true nor false.